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

In vivo application of magnetic molecularly imprinted polymer in rheumatoid arthritis rat model

A magnetic molecularly imprinted polymer (MMIP) was synthesised and tested for an in vivo rheumatoid arthritis (RA) rat model. Magnetite coated with mesoporous silica (Fe2O3@mSi) was used as core for surface imprinting, dopamine was used as monomer and methotrexate (MTX) was loaded directly during polymerisation. The amount of MTX loaded on MMIPs reached 201.165 ± 0.315 µmol/g. Characterisation of the polymers was done via SEM, TEM, and FTIR. The pharmacological effect of the selected MMIP was evaluated in a Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA) induced arthritis rat model where a 3D magnet bearing construct was designed for targeted delivery of MMIPs. The parameters evaluated were the change in paw edoema, paw diameter, gait score, and animal's weight. Results revealed a tendency of MMIP to significantly improve the measured parameters which was confirmed with histopathological findings. In conclusion, the improvement in the arthritic signs associated with MMIP treatment compared to free MTX, indicated successful targeting of MMIPs to the site of inflammation.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib combined with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Trials were identified from four electronic databases: PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE from inception to April 2022. Two independent reviewers evaluated each database to scan the title, abstract and keywords of each record retrieved. Full articles were further assessed when the information suggested that the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing tofacitinib combined with MTX vs. MTX monotherapy in patients with active RA. Data were extracted from the literature, and the methodological quality of the included literature were evaluated and screened by two reviewers independently. The results were analyzed using RevMan5.3 software. The full text of the studies and extracted data were reviewed independently according to PRISMA guidelines. The outcome indicators were ACR 20, ACR 50, ACR 70, Disease activity score 28 (DAS28), erythrocyte sedimentation Rate (ESR) and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Of 1152 studies yielded by the search, 4 were retained, totaling 1782 patients (1345 treated with tofacitinib combined with MTX vs 437 received MTX. In the trial of insufficient response to MTX treatment, tofacitinib combined with MTX had significant advantages compared with MTX monotherapy. Numerically higher ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were observed in the tofacitinib combined with MTX groups versus MTX monotherapy. ACR20 (odds ratio (OR), 3.62; 95% CI, 2.84-4.61; P < 0.001), ACR50 (OR, 5.17; 95% CI, 3.62-7.38; P < 0.001), and ACR70 (OR, 8.44; 95% CI, 4.34-16.41; P < 0.001), DAS28 (ESR) < 2.6 (OR, 4.71, 95% CI, 2.06-10.77; P < 0.001). The probability of adverse events of tofacitinib combined with MTX was lower than that of MTX monotherapy (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.08-1.88; P = 0.01). The number of cases discontinued due to lack of efficacy or adverse events was similar in both groups (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.52-1.68). The probability of abnormal liver enzymes in the treatment of tofacitinib combined with MTX was significantly lower than that of MTX monotherapy (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.35-2.56). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in severe adverse reactions, neutropenia, anemia and cardiovascular disease.

Conclusions

In terms of ACR20/50/70 and DAS28 (ESR), tofacitinib combined with MTX demonstrated superiority to MTX monotherapy in the treatment of patients with refractory RA. Considering the hepatoprotective and observably therapeutic efficacy, tofacitinib combined with MTX could be effective in treating refractory RA. However, in terms of hepatoprotective, it requires further large-scale and high-quality clinical trials to confirm.

Iguratimod combination therapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the relative efficacy and safety of iguratimod combination therapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHOD

We identified parallel randomized controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases and trial registries for January April 2020. Independent assessment of the risk of bias and grading of the certainty of evidence was performed for the selected trials. We operated RevMan 5 software to compute the meta-analysis. We applied the random-effects model. The statistical methods applied were the Mantel-Haenszel method and the inverse-variance method for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 12 trials involving 1095 participants. Based on our result, patients on iguratimod combination are likely to have 3.53 (95% CI 2.22 to 5.60, moderate-certainty), 3.24, and 2.73 times higher odds for attaining American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR) 20, 50, and 70, respectively, than methotrexate monotherapy. Disease state measured using DAS28 score (MD -0.71 score, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.39, very low certainty) and functional ability indicated by HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.11, very low certainty) may also be better. The combination therapy also produced better results for C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, pain intensity, and patient's and physician's global assessment of disease state. Incidence of adverse events were similar between the groups (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.83, moderate-certainty).

CONCLUSION

Iguratimod combined with methotrexate may be considered a promising alternative for treating RA. Key Points • Iguratimod combination therapy produced better results in all the efficacy outcomes than methotrexate monotherapy. • Iguratimod combination therapy may be as safe as methotrexate monotherapy. • We recommend future clinical trials of iguratimod combination therapy in RA with iguratimod combined with DMARDs other than methotrexate and conducted in diverse population.

Mining social media data to investigate patient perceptions regarding DMARD pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesise that patients have a positive sentiment regarding biological/targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) and a negative sentiment towards conventional synthetic agents (csDMARDs). We analysed discussions on social media platforms regarding DMARDs to understand the collective sentiment expressed towards these medications.

METHODS

Treato analytics were used to download all available posts on social media about DMARDs in the context of rheumatoid arthritis. Strict filters ensured that user generated content was downloaded. The sentiment (positive or negative) expressed in these posts was analysed for each DMARD using sentiment analysis. We also analysed the reason(s) for this sentiment for each DMARD, looking specifically at efficacy and side effects.

RESULTS

Computer algorithms analysed millions of social media posts and included 54 742 posts about DMARDs. We found that both classes had an overall positive sentiment. The ratio of positive to negative posts was higher for b/tsDMARDs (1.210) than for csDMARDs (1.048). Efficacy was the most commonly mentioned reason in posts with a positive sentiment and lack of efficacy was the most commonly mentioned reason for a negative sentiment. These were followed by the presence/absence of side effects in negative or positive posts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Public opinion on social media is generally positive about DMARDs. Lack of efficacy followed by side effects were the most common themes in posts with a negative sentiment. There are clear reasons why a DMARD generates a positive or negative sentiment, as the sentiment analysis technology becomes more refined, targeted studies could be done to analyse these reasons and allow clinicians to tailor DMARDs to match patient needs.

Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis Are at Risk of Developing Adhesive Capsulitis: Real-World Evidence Database Study in Taiwan

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA) present with inflammation invading the axial skeleton. Symptoms of ax-SpA interfere with patients' quality of life, and peripheral symptoms are also noted. Human leukocyte antigen B27 was associated with adhesive capsulitis. However, epidemiological studies investigating the associated incidence and risk factors for patients with ax-SpA with adhesive capsulitis are limited. The data of patients with ax-SpA were recorded during the 2004-2008 period and followed to the end of 2010. The control cohort comprised age- and sex-matched non-ax-SpA subjects. A Cox multivariate proportional hazards model was applied to analyze the risk factors for adhesive capsulitis. The hazard ratio (HR) and adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) were estimated between the study and control cohorts after confounders were adjusted for. Effects of sulfasalazine (SSZ), methotrexate (MTX), and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use on adhesive capsulitis risk were also analyzed. We enrolled 2859 patients with ax-SpA in the study cohort and 11,436 control subjects. A higher incidence of adhesive capsulitis was revealed in the ax-SpA cohort: The crude HR was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.13; p < 0.001), and the aHR was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16-2.05; p = 0.002). For patients with ax-SpA using SSZ or HCQ, no difference in aHR was noted compared with control participants, but patients with ax-SpA treated with MTX had higher HR and aHR than controls. Patients with ax-SpA are at risk for adhesive capsulitis. When these patients receive SSZ or HCQ, the risk of adhesive capsulitis can be lowered compared with that of the control cohort.

Optimising low-dose methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis-A review

Methotrexate at low doses (5-25 mg/week) is first-line therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. However, there is inter- and intrapatient variability in response, with contribution of variability in concentrations of active polyglutamate metabolites, associated with clinical efficacy and toxicity. Prescribing remains heterogeneous across population groups, disease states and regimens. This review examines current knowledge of dose-response of oral methotrexate in the setting of rheumatoid arthritis, and how this could help inform dosage regimens.

Side effects of methotrexate therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review

Methotrexate (MTX) is used as an anchor disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) because of its potent efficacy and tolerability. MTX benefits a large number of RA patients but partially suffered from side effects. A variety of side effects can be associated with MTX when treating RA patients, from mild to severe or discontinuation of the treatment. In this report, we reviewed the possible side effects that MTX might cause from the most common gastrointestinal toxicity effects to less frequent malignant diseases. In order to achieve regimen with less side effects, the administration of MTX with appropriate dose and a careful pretreatment inspection is necessary. Further investigations are required when combining MTX with other drugs so as to enhance the efficacy and reduce side effects at the same time. The management of MTX treatment is also discussed to provide strategies for occurred side effects. Thus, this review will provide scholars with a comprehensive understanding the side effects of MTX administration by RA patients.

Exercise for rheumatoid arthritis of the hand

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory polyarthritis that frequently affects the hands and wrists. Hand exercises are prescribed to improve mobility and strength, and thereby hand function.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of hand exercise in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), OTseeker, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared hand exercise with any non-exercise therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies involving 841 people (aged 20 to 94 years) in the review. Most studies used validated diagnostic criteria and involved home programmes.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from one study indicated uncertainty about whether exercise improves hand function in the short term (< 3 months). On a 0 to 80 points hand function test (higher scores mean better function), the exercise group (n = 11) scored 76.1 points and control group (n = 13) scored 75 points.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that exercise compared to usual care probably slightly improves hand function (mean difference (MD) 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 7.42; n = 449) in the medium term (3 to 11 months) and in the long term (12 months or beyond) (MD 4.3, 95% CI 0.86 to 7.74; n = 438). The absolute change on a 0-to-100 hand function scale (higher scores mean better function) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) were 5% (95% CI 2% to 7%); 8 (95% CI 5 to 20) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 8%); 9 (95% CI 6 to 27), respectively. A 4% to 5% improvement indicates a minimal clinical benefit.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pain (MD -27.98, 95% CI -48.93 to -7.03; n = 124) in the short term. The absolute change on a 0-to-100-millimetre scale (higher scores mean more pain) was -28% (95% CI -49% to -7%) and NNTB 2 (95% CI 2 to 11).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that there is probably little or no difference between exercise and usual care on pain in the medium (MD -2.8, 95% CI - 6.96 to 1.36; n = 445) and long term (MD -3.7, 95% CI -8.1 to 0.7; n = 437). On a 0-to-100 scale, the absolute changes were -3% (95% CI -7% to 2%) and -4% (95% CI -8% to 1%), respectively.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 141) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved grip strength in the short term. The standardised mean difference for the left hand was 0.44 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.78), re-expressed as 3.5 kg (95% CI 0.87 to 6.1); and for the right hand 0.46 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.8), re-expressed as 4 kg (95% CI 1.13 to 7).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean grip strength (in kg) of both hands in the medium term (MD 1.4, 95% CI -0.27 to 3.07; n = 400), relative change 11% (95% CI -2% to 13%); and in the long term (MD 1.2, 95% CI -0.62 to 3.02; n = 355), relative change 9% (95% CI -5% to 23%).Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies (n = 120) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pinch strength (in kg) in the short term. The MD and relative change for the left and right hands were 0.51 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.9) and 44% (95% CI 11% to 78%); and 0.82 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.21) and 68% (95% CI 36% to 101%).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean pinch strength of both hands in the medium (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.74; n = 396) and long term (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.88; n = 351). The relative changes were 8% (95% CI -4% to 19%) and 10% (95% CI -2% to 22%).No study evaluated the American College of Rheumatology 50 criteria.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that people who also received exercise with strategies for adherence were probably more adherent than those who received routine care alone in the medium term (risk ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.48; n = 438) and NNTB 6 (95% CI 4 to 10). In the long term, the risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28; n = 422).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study (n = 246) indicated no adverse events with exercising. The other six studies did not report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether exercise improves hand function or pain in the short term. It probably slightly improves function but has little or no difference on pain in the medium and long term. It is uncertain whether exercise improves grip and pinch strength in the short term, and probably has little or no difference in the medium and long term. The ACR50 response is unknown. People who received exercise with adherence strategies were probably more adherent in the medium term than who did not receive exercise, but with little or no difference in the long term. Hand exercise probably does not lead to adverse events. Future research should consider hand and wrist function as their primary outcome, describe exercise following the TIDieR guidelines, and evaluate behavioural strategies.

Recommendations for optimizing methotrexate treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Methotrexate (MTX) remains the cornerstone therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with well-established safety and efficacy profiles and support in international guidelines. Clinical and radiologic results indicate benefits of MTX monotherapy and combination with other agents, yet patients may not receive optimal dosing, duration, or route of administration to maximize their response to this drug. This review highlights best practices for MTX use in RA patients. First, to improve the response to oral MTX, a high initial dose should be administered followed by rapid titration. Importantly, this approach does not appear to compromise safety or tolerability for patients. Treatment with oral MTX, with appropriate dose titration, then should be continued for at least 6 months (as long as the patient experiences some response to treatment within 3 months) to achieve an accurate assessment of treatment efficacy. If oral MTX treatment fails due to intolerability or inadequate response, the patient may be "rescued" by switching to subcutaneous delivery of MTX. Consideration should also be given to starting with subcutaneous MTX given its favorable bioavailability and pharmacodynamic profile over oral delivery. Either initiation of subcutaneous MTX therapy or switching from oral to subcutaneous administration improves persistence with treatment. Upon transition from oral to subcutaneous delivery, MTX dosage should be maintained, rather than increased, and titration should be performed as needed. Similarly, if another RA treatment is necessary to control the disease, the MTX dosage and route of administration should be maintained, with titration as needed.

Non-persistence and non-adherence to MTX therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study based on German RA patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the level of nonpersistence (NP) and nonadherence (NA) to methotrexate (MTX) therapy in German patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on German claims data, RA patients who received a MTX therapy (subgroup: treatment-naive patients) were analyzed. NP was defined as treatment gap >12 weeks. Regarding NA, it is the overall medication possession ratio (MPR) during an observational period of 12 or 24 months after therapy, and the MPR is calculated only for the periods of therapy continuation; NA was defined as MPR <80%.

RESULTS

A total of 7,146 RA patients who received at least one MTX prescription (subgroup: 1,211 treatment-naive patients) could be observed (mean age: 64.4 years, 73.6% female). Percentage of NP patients among MTX-naive patients after 6, 12 and 18 months was 16.7%, 34.0% and 36.7%, respectively. After MTX therapy discontinuation, 39.9% had restarted their MTX therapy, 13.8% had received another non-MTX synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (sDMARD), 8.1% had biological DMARD (bDMARD) and 49.2% had not received any DMARD prescription at all. Overall, 12- and 24-month MPRs for MTX therapy were 83.0% and 76.5% with a percentage of NA patients of 25.8% and 33.8%, respectively. During periods of general treatment continuation, the percentage of patients with an MPR <80% was 6.5%.

CONCLUSION

NP to MTX treatment seems to be common in one-fourth of German patients with RA. An additional number of patients, at least 6.5%, are also affected by NA. A considerable percentage of RA patients who discontinued MTX therapy do not receive any follow-up DMARD therapy.

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

BACKGROUND

When conducting systematic reviews, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the specific research question. The Cochrane Collaborations Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines state that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL should be considered mandatory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MECIR recommendations to use MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined, and examine the yield of using these to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the area of musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

Data sources were systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group, including at least five RCTs, reporting a search history, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and adding reference- and hand-searching. Additional databases were deemed eligible if they indexed RCTs, were in English and used in more than three of the systematic reviews. Relative recall was calculated as the number of studies identified by the literature search divided by the number of eligible studies i.e. included studies in the individual systematic reviews. Finally, cumulative median recall was calculated for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined followed by the databases yielding additional studies.

RESULTS

Deemed eligible was twenty-three systematic reviews and the databases included other than MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was AMED, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, MANTIS, OT-Seeker, PEDro, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SportDISCUS and Web of Science. Cumulative median recall for combined searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was 88.9% and increased to 90.9% when adding 10 additional databases.

CONCLUSION

Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was not sufficient for identifying all effect studies on musculoskeletal disorders, but additional ten databases did only increase the median recall by 2%. It is possible that searching databases is not sufficient to identify all relevant references, and that reviewers must rely upon additional sources in their literature search. However further research is needed.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.

DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA SOURCES

Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

RESULTS

158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.

Serum survivin predicts responses to treatment in active rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis from the SWEFOT trial

BACKGROUND

The identification of biomarkers that predict optimal and individual choices of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis gains increasing attention. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the proto-oncogene survivin might aid in treatment decisions in early rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Serum survivin levels were measured in 302 patients who completed the Swedish pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. Survivin levels > 0.45 ng/mL were considered positive. Based on the survivin status, core set outcomes measuring disease activity, functional disability, as well as global health and pain were evaluated after methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy at 3 months, and at 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Treatment of non-responders was randomly intensified with either a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (triple therapy: MTX, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or by adding antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF).

RESULTS

Antirheumatic treatment resulted in an overall decrease of serum survivin levels. Survivin-positive patients at baseline who initially responded to MTX had a higher risk of disease re-activation (OR 3.21 (95% CI 1.12-9.24), P = 0.032) and failed to improve in their functional disability (P = 0.018) if having continued on MTX monotherapy compared to survivin-negative patients. Ever-smokers who were survivin-positive were less likely to respond to MTX than those who were survivin-negative (OR 1.91 (1.01-3.62), P = 0.045). In survivin-positive patients, triple therapy led to better improvements in disease activity than did MTX + anti-TNF. At 24 months, survivin-positive patients randomized to anti-TNF had a higher risk of active disease than those randomized to triple therapy (OR 3.15 (1.09-9.10), P = 0.037).

DISCUSSION

We demonstrate for the first time that survivin is a valuable serologic marker that can distinguish drug-specific clinical responses in early rheumatoid arthritis through the pragmatic clinical setting of the care-based SWEFOT trial. Although treatment response cannot solely be attributable to survivin status, per protocol sensitivity analyses confirmed the superior effect of triple therapy on survivin-positive patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivin-positive patients have poor outcomes if treated with MTX monotherapy. A decrease of survivin levels during treatment is associated with better clinical responses. For survivin-positive patients who fail MTX, triple therapy is associated with better outcomes than anti-TNF therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

WHO database at the Karolinska University Hospital: CT20080004 ; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00764725, registered 1 October 2008.

Three decades of low-dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: can we predict toxicity?

Methotrexate (MTX) is the anchor disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. It is used in monotherapy and/or in combination with other synthetic or biological DMARDs, and is known to have the best cost-effectiveness and efficacy/toxicity ratios. However, toxicity is still a concern, with a significant proportion of patients interrupting long-term treatment due to the occurrence of MTX-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which are the main cause of drug withdrawal. Despite the extensive accumulated experience in the last three decades, it is still impossible in routine clinical practice to identify patients prone to develop MTX toxicity. While clinical and biological variables, including folate supplementation, partially help to minimize MTX-related ADRs, the advent of pharmacogenomics could provide further insight into risk stratification and help to optimize drug monitoring and long-term retention. In this paper, we aimed to review and summarize current data on low-dose MTX-associated toxicity, its prevention and predictors, keeping in mind practical RA clinical care.

Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs.

METHODS

We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included "biologics", "rheumatoid arthritis" and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.

FINDINGS

The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.09-1.58) and high-dose biological drugs (1.90, 1.50-2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0.93, 0.65-1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs.

INTERPRETATION

Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

FUNDING

Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Outcomes related to methotrexate dose and route of administration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Methotrexate (MTX) is considered the 'anchor drug' in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet many physicians do not optimise MTX regimens in spite of high RA disease activity. The recent development of an auto-injector for the subcutaneous (subQ) administration of MTX has prompted re-evaluation of MTX utilisation. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to determine the optimal dose, drug level, and route of administration for MTX in the context of relevant pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed in Medline searching specifically for randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, case control and cohort studies evaluating outcomes related to MTX dose and route of administration. Articles fulfilling these inclusion criteria were reviewed. Data on MTX dose, route of administration, clinical response, drug levels and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

Our search identified 420 articles of which 6 were eligible for inclusion using the above criteria. These included 2 systematic reviews, 2 randomised open label trials, one longitudinal study and one retrospective cohort study.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and toxicity for MTX appear related to absorbed dose of MTX, not to route of administration. While bioavailability is greater for parenteral MTX, there is no evidence yet that splitting the oral dose of MTX is less advantageous, less safe or less tolerable than administering parenteral MTX. However, there appear to be modest benefits in beginning with higher doses of MTX, and switching to parenteral MTX when the clinical response to an oral dose is inadequate.

The design of a low literacy decision aid about rheumatoid arthritis medications developed in three languages for use during the clinical encounter

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care is a priority among policy makers, clinicians and patients both nationally and internationally. Demands on patients to have basic knowledge of RA, treatment options, and details of risk and benefit when making medication decisions with clinicians can be overwhelming, especially for those with limited literacy or limited English language proficiency. The objective of this study is to describe the development of a medication choice decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in three languages using low literacy principles.

METHODS

Based on the development of a diabetes decision aid, the RA decision aid (RA Choice) was developed through a collaborative process involving patients, clinicians, designers, decision-aid and health literacy experts. A combination of evidence synthesis and direct observation of clinician-patient interactions generated content and guided an iterative process of prototype development.

RESULTS

Three iterations of RA Choice were developed and field-tested before completion. The final tool organized data using icons and plain language for 12 RA medications across 5 issues: frequency of administration, time to onset, cost, side effects, and special considerations. The tool successfully created a conversation between clinician and patient, and garnered high acceptability from clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of collaboratively developing an RA decision aid designed to promote shared decision making resulted in a graphically-enhanced, low literacy tool. The use of RA Choice in the clinical encounter has the potential to enhance communication for RA patients, including those with limited health literacy and limited English language proficiency.

1-Methyl-tryptophan synergizes with methotrexate to alleviate arthritis in a mouse model of arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory autoimmune disease with no known cure. Current strategies to treat RA, including methotrexate (MTX), target the later inflammatory stage of disease. Recently, we showed that inhibiting indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) with 1-methyl-tryptophan (1MT) targets autoantibodies and cytokines that drive the initiation of the autoimmune response. Therefore, we hypothesized that combining 1MT with MTX would target both the initiation and chronic inflammatory phases of the autoimmune response and be an effective co-therapeutic strategy for arthritis. To test this, we used K/BxN mice, a pre-clinical model of arthritis that develops joint-specific inflammation with many characteristics of human RA. Mice were treated with 1MT, MTX, alone or in combination, and followed for arthritis, autoantibodies, and inflammatory cytokines. Both 1MT and MTX were able to partially inhibit arthritis when used individually; however, combining MTX + 1MT was significantly more effective than either treatment alone at delaying the onset and alleviating the severity of joint inflammation. We went on to show that combination of MTX + 1MT did not lower inflammatory cytokine or autoantibody levels, nor could the synergistic co-therapeutic effect be reversed by the adenosine receptor antagonist theophylline or be mimicked by inhibition of polyamine synthesis. However, supplementation with folinic acid did reverse the synergistic co-therapeutic effect, demonstrating that, in the K/BxN model, MTX synergizes with 1MT by blocking folate metabolism. These data suggest that pharmacological inhibition of IDO with 1MT is a potential candidate for use in combination with MTX to increase its efficacy in the treatment of RA.

Indispensable or intolerable? Methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis: a retrospective review of discontinuation rates from a large UK cohort

Methotrexate (MTX) has become the first-line treatment for rheumatoid (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, few studies have focused on its tolerability. The objective of our analyses was to study RA and PsA patients in whom MTX was discontinued, the reasons for this and the duration of MTX treatment prior to withdrawal. A retrospective electronic database review was undertaken to identify all patients who had received MTX for RA or PsA. Patients who had discontinued MTX were then identified, and the reasons for this were categorised. The duration of MTX treatment was assessed in those who had stopped treatment due to intolerability. A total of 1,257 patients who had received MTX were identified [762 (61 %) RA and 193 (15 %) PsA]. MTX had been stopped in 260 (34 %) patients with RA and 71 (36 %) patients with PsA most commonly due to gastrointestinal intolerability. The median duration of MTX treatment was 10 months in both groups, mean duration 21 and 18.6 months in RA and PsA groups, respectively. Overall, one third of patients with RA and PsA stop MTX most commonly due to poor tolerability. In the context of chronic disease, the median duration of treatment is short (10 months). Our analysis did not include patients who suffer from side effects but continue therapy; thus, the magnitude of the problem may be substantially greater therefore as poor tolerability impacts treatment adherence.

Sarilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against IL-6Rα in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: efficacy and safety results from the randomised SARIL-RA-MOBILITY Part A trial

Objectives

To evaluate safety and efficacy of weekly (qw) and every other week (q2w) dosing of sarilumab, a fully human anti-interleukin 6 receptor α (anti-IL-6Rα) monoclonal antibody, for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

In this dose-ranging study, patients (n=306) with active RA, despite methotrexate, were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five subcutaneous doses/regimens of sarilumab: 100 mg q2w, 150 mg q2w, 100 mg qw, 200 mg q2w, 150 mg qw for 12 weeks, plus methotrexate. The primary end point was ACR20 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included ACR50, ACR70, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (C reactive protein). Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy in population subgroups were assessed.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving an ACR20 response compared with placebo was significantly higher for sarilumab 150 mg qw (72.0% vs 46.2%, multiplicity adjusted p=0.0203). Higher ACR20 responses were also attained with 150 mg q2w (67%; unadjusted (nominal) p=0.0363) and 200 mg q2w (65%; unadjusted p=0.0426) versus placebo. Sarilumab ≥150 mg q2w reduced C reactive protein, which did not return to baseline between dosing intervals. Infections were the most common adverse event; none were serious. Changes in laboratory values (neutropenia, transaminases and lipids) were consistent with reports with other IL-6Rα inhibitors.

Conclusions

Sarilumab improved signs and symptoms of RA over 12 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe RA with a safety profile similar to reports with other IL-6 inhibitors. Sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg q2w had the most favourable efficacy, safety and dosing convenience and are being further evaluated in Phase III.

Folic acid and folinic acid for reducing side effects in patients receiving methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate (MTX) is a disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) used as a first line agent for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Pharmacologically, it is classified as an antimetabolite due to its antagonistic effect on folic acid metabolism. Many patients treated with MTX experience mucosal, gastrointestinal, hepatic or haematologic side effects. Supplementation with folic or folinic acid during treatment with MTX may ameliorate these side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To identify trials of supplementation with folic acid or folinic acid during MTX therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and to assess the benefits and harms of folic acid and folinic acid (a) in reducing the mucosal, gastrointestinal (GI), hepatic and haematologic side effects of MTX, and (b) whether or not folic or folinic acid supplementation has any effect on MTX benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We originally performed MEDLINE searches, from January 1966 to June 1999. During the update of this review, we searched additional databases and used a sensitive search strategy designed to retrieve all trials on folic acid or folinic acid for rheumatoid arthritis from 1999 up to 2 March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in which adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis were treated with MTX (at a dose equal to or less than 25 mg/week) concurrently with folate supplementation. In this update of the review we only included trials using 'low dose' folic or folinic acid (a starting dose of ≤ 7 mg weekly).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the trials, and the trials were independently assessed for risk of bias using a predetermined set of criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials with 624 patients were eligible for inclusion. Most studies had low or unclear risk of bias for key domains. The quality of the evidence was rated as 'moderate' for each outcome as assessed by GRADE, with the exception of haematologic side effects which were rated as 'low'. There was no significant heterogeneity between trials, including where folic acid and folinic acid studies were pooled.For patients supplemented with any form of exogenous folate (either folic or folinic acid) whilst on MTX therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, a 26% relative (9% absolute) risk reduction was seen for the incidence of GI side effects such as nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92; P = 0.008). Folic and folinic acid also appear to be protective against abnormal serum transaminase elevation caused by MTX, with a 76.9% relative (16% absolute) risk reduction (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.34; P < 0.00001), as well as reducing patient withdrawal from MTX for any reason (60.8% relative (15.2% absolute) risk reduction, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; P < 0.00001).We analysed the effect of folic or folinic acid on the incidence of stomatitis / mouth sores, and whilst showing a trend towards reduction in risk, the results were not statistically significant (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06)It was not possible to draw meaningful conclusions on the effect of folic or folinic acid on haematologic side effects of methotrexate due to small numbers of events and poor reporting of this outcome in included trials.It does not appear that supplementation with either folic or folinic acid has a statistically significant effect on the efficacy of MTX in treating RA (as measured by RA disease activity parameters such as tender and swollen joint counts, or physician's global assessment scores).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results support a protective effect of supplementation with either folic or folinic acid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis during treatment with MTX.There was a significant reduction shown in the incidence of GI side effects, hepatic dysfunction (asmeasured by elevated serum transaminase levels) as well as a significant reduction in discontinuation of MTX treatment for any reason. A trend towards a reduction in stomatitis was demonstrated however this did not reach statistical significance.This updated review with its focus on lower doses of folic acid and folinic acid and updated assessment of risk of bias aimed to give a more precise and more clinically relevant estimate of the benefit of folate supplementation for patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate.

Methotrexate for ankylosing spondylitis

BACKGROUND

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown cause, characterized by sacroiliitis and spondylitis. Methotrexate (MTX), a widely used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), is effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and so might work for AS. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of MTX for treating AS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 6, 2012), MEDLINE (2005 to June 25, 2012), EMBASE (2005 to June 25, 2012), Ovid MEDLINE Scopus, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference sections of retrieved articles. Trials published in any language were acceptable.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (qRCTs) examining the benefits and harms of MTX versus placebo, other medication, or no medication for treatment of AS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussions with a third review author. In the absence of significant heterogeneity, we combined results for continuous data using mean difference or standardized mean difference values. We calculated the risk ratio for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs (no additional new studies), which included 116 participants. Of these three trials, one was a 12-month trial that compared naproxen plus MTX with naproxen alone. Also, there were two 24-week trials that compared different doses of MTX with placebo. We included the outcomes of response, physical function, pain, spinal mobility, peripheral joints/entheses pain, swelling and tenderness, changes in spine radiographs, and patient and physician global assessment. We judged only one trial to be at low risk of bias. Across these three trials, we did not identify any statistically significant differences favoring MTX treatment over no MTX treatment apart from one exception. The response rate in one trial showed a statistically significant absolute benefit of 36% and a number to treat for benefit (NNT) of three in the MTX group compared to the placebo group (RR 3.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 9.79). This response rate was based on a composite index that included assessments of morning stiffness, physical well-being, Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis functional index (BASFI), health assessment questionnaire for spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S), and physician and patient global assessment. We did not identify any outcome that showed a statistically significant difference between the MTX treated and no MTX treatment groups when endpoint results were compared. Furthermore, no serious side effects were reported in any of the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough evidence to support any benefit of MTX in the treatment of AS. High-quality RCTs of larger sample sizes are needed to clarify the effect(s) of MTX on AS.

[Systematic literature research for S1 guidelines on sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]

BACKGROUND

On behalf of the German association of Rheumatology national experts developed guidelines for the medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. Current evidence was provided with an update of the systematic literature review (SLR). The methods and results of the SLR are presented in this article.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An update of the EULAR SLR for the medical treatment of RA was performed from January 2009 to August 2011. The SLR assessed all controlled studies dealing with the outcome in clinical aspects, function and structure of disease modifying treatment of RA.

RESULTS

Out of 6,869 screened publications, 138 articles and 56 abstracts were considered in the development of the German guidelines on the treatment of RA. A modified set of recommendations was approved in a consensus of national experts.

CONCLUSION

A systematic literature research provided current evidence for the German recommendations on the sequential medical treatment of RA.

[German 2012 guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Adapted EULAR recommendations and updated treatment algorithm]

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.

My treatment approach to rheumatoid arthritis

The past decade has brought important advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis and its management and treatment. New classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, better definitions of treatment outcome and remission, and the introduction of biologic response-modifying drugs designed to inhibit the inflammatory process have greatly altered the approach to managing this disease. More aggressive management of rheumatoid arthritis early after diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease has resulted in improvement in patient functioning and quality of life, reduction in comorbid conditions, and enhanced survival.

Merging Veterans Affairs rheumatoid arthritis registry and pharmacy data to assess methotrexate adherence and disease activity in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry and the VA Pharmacy Benefits Management database were linked to determine the association of methotrexate (MTX) adherence with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity.

METHODS

For each patient, the medication possession ratio (MPR) was calculated for the first episode of MTX exposure of a duration of ≥12 weeks for both new and established MTX users. High MTX adherence was defined as an MPR ≥0.80 and low MTX adherence was defined as an MPR <0.80. For each patient, the mean Disease Activity Score with 28 joints (DAS28) score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reaction protein (CRP) level observed during registry followup were compared in high- versus low-adherence groups.

RESULTS

In 455 RA patients, the prescribed doses of MTX (mean ± SD 16 ± 4 mg versus 16 ± 4 mg; P = 0.6) were similar in high-adherence patients (n = 370) in comparison to low-adherence patients (n = 85). However, the actual observed MTX doses taken by patients were significantly higher in the high-adherence group (mean ± SD 16 ± 5 mg versus 11 ± 3 mg; P < 0.001). DAS28 (mean ± SD 3.6 ± 1.2 versus 3.9 ± 1.5; P < 0.02), ESR (mean ± SD 24 ± 18 versus 29 ± 24 mm/hour; P = 0.05), and CRP level (mean ± SD 1.2 ± 1.3 versus 1.6 ± 1.5 mg/dl; P < 0.03) were lower in the high-adherence group compared to those with low MTX adherence. These variances were not explained by differences in baseline demographic features, concurrent treatments, or whether MTX was initiated before or after VARA enrollment.

CONCLUSION

High MTX adherence was associated with improved clinical outcomes in RA patients treated with MTX. Adjustment for potential confounders did not alter the estimated effect of adherence. These results demonstrate the advantages of being able to merge clinical observations with pharmacy databases to evaluate antirheumatic drugs in clinical practice.

Safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including aspirin and paracetamol (acetaminophen) in people receiving methotrexate for inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, other spondyloarthritis)

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is routinely used in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis. There have been concerns regarding the safety of using concurrent non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or paracetamol (acetaminophen), or both, in these people.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically appraise and summarise the scientific evidence on the safety of using NSAIDs, including aspirin, or paracetamol, or both, with methotrexate in inflammatory arthritis; and to identify gaps in the current evidence, assess the implications of those gaps and to make recommendations for future research to address these deficiencies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, second quarter 2010); MEDLINE (from 1950); EMBASE (from 1980); the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We also handsearched the conference proceedings for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) (2008 to 2009) and checked the websites of regulatory agencies for reported adverse events, labels and warnings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing the safety of methotrexate alone to methotrexate with concurrent NSAIDs, including aspirin, or paracetamol, or both, in people with inflammatory arthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen publications out of 8681 identified studies were included in the review, all of which included people with rheumatoid arthritis using various NSAIDs, including aspirin. There were no identified studies for other forms of inflammatory arthritis.For NSAIDs, 13 studies were included that used concurrent NSAIDs, of which nine studies examined unspecified NSAIDs. The mean number of participants was 150.4 (range 19 to 315), mean duration 2182.9 (range 183 to 5490) days, although the study duration was not always clearly defined, and the studies were mainly of low to moderate quality. Two of these studies reported no evidence for increased risk of methotrexate-induced pulmonary disease; one study assessed the effect of concurrent NSAIDs on renal function and found no adverse effect; one study identified no adverse effect on liver function; three studies demonstrated no increase in methotrexate withdrawal; and one study showed no increase in all adverse events, including major toxic reactions. However, transient thrombocytopenia was demonstrated in one study, specifically when NSAIDs were taken on the same week day as methotrexate. This study was a retrospective review that involved small numbers only and was of moderate quality; these finding have not been replicated since.Four studies looked at specific NSAIDs (etodolac, piroxicam, celecoxib and etoricoxib), with a mean number of participants of 25.8 (range 14 to 50) and mean study duration of 16.8 (range 14 to 23) days. These studies were mainly of moderate quality. The studies were primarily pharmacokinetic studies but also reported adverse events as secondary outcomes. There were no clinically significant adverse effects with concomitant piroxicam or etodolac; and only mild adverse events with celecoxib or etoricoxib, such as nausea and vomiting, and headaches.For aspirin, seven studies provided data on adverse events with the use of aspirin and methotrexate. These studies included a mean number of participants of 100 (range 11 to 232), had a mean duration of 1325 (range 8 to 2928) days and were mainly of low to moderate quality. Two of the studies reported no evidence for increased risk of methotrexate-induced pulmonary disease and two studies showed no increase in all adverse events including major toxic reactions; however, none of these studies specified the dose of aspirin that was used. One study demonstrated that concurrent aspirin adversely affected liver function at a mean dose of 6.84 tablets of aspirin per day, which is a possible daily dose of 2.1 g presuming that 300 mg aspirin tablets were given. A further study described a partially reversible decline in renal function with 2 g daily of aspirin. One study reported no increase in adverse events with 975 g aspirin daily, however the study duration was only one week.For paracetamol, no studies were identified for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the management of rheumatoid arthritis, the concurrent use of NSAIDs with methotrexate appears to be safe provided appropriate monitoring is performed. The use of anti-inflammatory doses of aspirin should be avoided.

Hepatotoxicity related to antirheumatic drugs

Antirheumatic agents are among commonly used drugs associated with adverse hepatic reactions. Sulfasalazine and azathioprine are among the most important causes of acute hepatotoxicity. Because such a large number of people take NSAIDs, even the rare occurrence of hepatotoxicity from these agents might contribute substantially to the total burden of drug-induced liver disease. A wide spectrum of hepatotoxic effects is described with antirheumatic drugs. Studies investigating genetic susceptibility to diclofenac hepatotoxicity have expanded our understanding of the potential drug-specific, class-specific and general factors involved in its pathogenesis, and methotrexate-associated liver disease demonstrates the interaction between drug, host and environmental factors that determines the likelihood and magnitude of liver disease. Infliximab therapy is associated with typical drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis. Although validated causality assessment methods have been used to objectively assess the strength of the association between a drug and a clinical event, in practice the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) involves a clinical index of suspicion, pattern recognition, the establishment of a temporal relationship between drug exposure and the adverse event, and the exclusion of alternative explanations for the clinical presentation. Detailed understanding of genetic and environmental factors underlying an individual's susceptibility would enable risk reduction and potentially primary prevention of hepatotoxicity.

Interleukin-6 inhibition for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a review of tocilizumab therapy

The dawn of the biologic era has been an exciting period for clinical research and patient care in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Targeted biologic therapies have changed the outcome of this disease and made remission a realistic outcome for many patients. Tocilizumab (TCZ, Actemra(®)), is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor and has been approved in many countries for the treatment of moderate to severe RA. There have been a number of important clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of TCZ in active rheumatoid arthritis. This review summarizes the data on efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, and safety from some of these trials. Current trends in clinical practice will be discussed. It is difficult to place TCZ and many new medications in the algorithm of treatment at present. However, the next few years will hopefully reveal their role as we better define abnormal immune processes in individuals with RA.