Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment After Methotrexate: The Durability of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept

Nano-based Therapeutics for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Recent Patents and Development

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease marked by inflammation of synovium and generation of autoantibodies. Bone and cartilage are frequently damaged along with weakening of tendons and ligaments resulting in disability. An effective RA treatment needs a multi-disciplinary approach which relies upon pathophysiology that is still partially understood. In RA patients, inflammation was induced by pro-inflammatory cytokines including IL-1, IL-6 & IL-10. The conventional dosage regimens for treating RA have drawbacks such as ineffectiveness, greater doses, frequent dosing, relatively expensive and serious adverse effects. To formulate an effective treatment plan for RA, research teams have recently focused on producing several nanoformulations containing anti-inflammatory APIs with an aim to target the inflamed area. Nanomedicines have recently gained popularity in the treatment of RA. Interestingly, unbelievable improvements have been observed in current years in diagnosis and management of RA utilizing nanotechnology. Various patents and clinical trial data have been reported in relevance to RA treatment.

Retention of triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine compared to combination methotrexate and leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

There are various combination conventional synthetic disease-modifying-antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) treatment strategies used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A commonly used csDMARD combination is triple therapy with methotrexate (MTX), sulfasalazine (SSZ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Another approach is double therapy with MTX and leflunomide (LEF). We compared the real-world retention of these two treatment combinations.

METHODS

Patients with RA from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) who received triple or double therapy on or after OBRI enrolment were included. Retention rates were compared between these two groups. We also analyzed which medication in the combination was discontinued and the reasons for treatment discontinuation. Disease activity was assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation as well as at time of discontinuation. Risk factors for treatment discontinuation were also examined.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety-two patients were included (258 triple and 434 double therapy). There were 175 (67.8%) discontinuations in the triple therapy group and 287 (66.1%) discontinuations in patients on double therapy. The median survival for triple therapy was longer (15.1 months; 95% CI: 11.2-21.2) compared to double therapy (9.6 months; 95%CI: 7.03-12.2). However, this was not statistically significant. Disease activity at 6 and 12 months, measured by 28-joint count Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) was lower with triple therapy (mean DAS28 at 6 months 3.4 vs. 3.9, P<0.0001 and at 12 months 3.2 vs. 3.5, P=0.0005).

CONCLUSION

Patients on triple therapy remained on treatment longer than patients on double therapy. However, this difference was not statistically significant.

Combination of methotrexate with oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review

Background: Oral conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), especially methotrexate, are the cornerstone of treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The use of csDMARDs with biologics has increased their efficacy in psoriasis. However, the combination of two oral DMARDs in patients with PsA has not been adequately reviewed. In this study, we explore the combinational use of methotrexate with DMARDs in PsA patients. Materials & methods: A review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, covering articles up to February 2023. Results & conclusion: Nine studies comprising 1993 participants were included. The evidence supporting combination therapy remains limited. Combinational therapy could be considered in patients with inadequate response to monotherapy or no access to biologics.

Treatment with FAP-targeted zinc ferrite nanoparticles for rheumatoid arthritis by inducing endoplasmic reticulum stress and mitochondrial damage

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the proliferation of fibroblast-like synoviocytes (FLS), pannus development, cartilage, and bone degradation, and, eventually, loss of joint function. Fibroblast activating protein (FAP) is a particular product of activated FLS and is highly prevalent in RA-derived fibroblast-like synoviocytes (RA-FLS). In this study, zinc ferrite nanoparticles (ZF-NPs) were engineered to target FAP+ (FAP positive) FLS. ZF-NPswere discovered to better target FAP+ FLS due to the surface alteration of FAP peptide and to enhance RA-FLS apoptosis by activating the endoplasmic reticulum stress (ERS) system via the PERK-ATF4-CHOP, IRE1-XBP1 pathway, and mitochondrial damage of RA-FLS. Treatment with ZF-NPs under the influence of an alternating magnetic field (AMF) can significantly amplify ERS and mitochondrial damage via the magnetocaloric effect. It was also observed in adjuvant-induced arthritis (AIA) mice that FAP-targeted ZF-NPs (FAP-ZF-NPs) could significantly suppress synovitis in vivo, inhibit synovial tissue angiogenesis, protect articular cartilage, and reduce M1 macrophage infiltration in synovium in AIA mice. Furthermore, treatment of AIA mice with FAP-ZF-NPs was found to be more promising in the presence of an AMF. These findings demonstrate the potential utility of FAP-ZF-NPs in the treatment of RA.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus May Be a Risk Factor for Antimalarial-Induced Retinopathy Compared With Other Rheumatologic Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern and risk factors for antimalarial (AM)-induced retinopathy in patients with rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted at an urban Canadian center for patients with AM use of more than 3 months and documented retinopathy screening. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine risk factors for retinopathy. Sensitivity analyses included stratification of analysis by method of screening and by hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) versus chloroquine (CQ).

RESULTS

A total of 613 patients were included in the final analysis, with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (n = 259) as the most common diagnosis. Definite AM-induced retinal toxicity was observed in 12 patients, 11 of whom had SLE. The earliest diagnosis of toxicity occurred after 5.4 years of AM therapy, and the prevalence beyond 5 years was 3.1%. In univariate analysis, a diagnosis of SLE (P = 0.009; odds ratio [OR]: 15.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01-122.05), the daily weight-based dose of HCQ (P = 0.044; OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.01-2.20), cumulative CQ dose (P = 0.014; OR: 4.80; CI: 1.37-16.84), and daily CQ weight-based dose (P = 0.0001; OR: 5.70; 95% CI: 2.41-13.49) were significantly associated with toxicity. In multivariate analysis, diagnosis of SLE (P = 0.022; OR: 12.14; 95% CI: 1.44-102.44) and daily CQ weight-based dose (P = 0.005; OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.83-26.75) were significant after adjusting for standard covariates.

CONCLUSION

The risk of AM-induced retinopathy increases after 5 years of therapy. There may be higher rates of toxicity in patients with SLE because of longer duration of treatment, higher weight-based dosages, and more CQ use in this population, and SLE may be an independent risk factor.

Combination Therapy for Psoriasis with Methotrexate and Other Oral Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Although the introduction of biologics and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) has reshaped the treatment paradigm for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) such as psoriasis, oral conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) remain the cornerstone in their treatment. Combinational use of DMARDs is common in rheumatological practice, but for the treatment of many skin diseases, dermatologists typically use a single oral DMARD, with methotrexate (MTX) being the most commonly prescribed csDMARD for psoriasis.

METHODS

To better understand the potential benefits of MTX combination therapy in psoriasis, a literature review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering articles published from inception until October 2022. Randomized controlled trials, cohort, open-label, and observational studies, and case reports with efficacy and safety results for combination therapy with MTX, csDMARDs, and tsDMARDs or comparisons between MTX monotherapy and combination therapy with other oral DMARDs in psoriasis were included. Studies involving MTX monotherapy alone or sequential treatment with MTX and other oral DMARDs were excluded, as were non-English articles. The results are presented as a systematic review, and the risk of bias was assessed by the corresponding author using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.3, and confirmed by an independent assessor.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 494 participants were included in the review. Overall, combination treatment with MTX and other oral DMARDs exhibited good efficacy and tolerability in psoriasis. However, the included studies were primarily small scale or retrospective, and larger prospective randomized trials are needed to provide stronger evidence.

CONCLUSION

This literature review suggests that combination therapy with MTX and csDMARDs may serve as an efficacious treatment for psoriasis patients with an inadequate response to oral DMARD monotherapy.

Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of triple therapy in preventing relapse in rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized controlled trial (ESCoRT study)

BACKGROUND

Biological agents, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), have been widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and greatly improved goal achievement. The aim of this study was to investigate whether conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) combination was better in reducing relapse than methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and more cost-effective than continuing TNFi plus MTX in RA patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) with TNFi and MTX therapy.

METHODS

RA patients who failed to csDMARDs received an induction therapy of MTX plus TNFi for maximally 12 weeks. Those achieving LDA in 12 weeks were randomly assigned at a 1:1:1 ratio into three groups: (A) adding hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine for the first 12 weeks and then discontinuing TNFi for the following 48 weeks; (B) maintaining TNFi and MTX for 60 weeks; and (C) maintaining TNFi and MTX for the first 12 weeks and then discontinuing TNFi for the following 48 weeks. The primary outcome was relapse.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were enrolled for induction therapy and 67 patients who achieved LDA within 12 weeks were randomized, with 24, 21, and 22 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The relapse rates of groups A and B during the entire 60 weeks were comparable [10/22 (45.5%) vs. 7/20 (35.0%), χ2 = 0.475, P = 0.491], however, significantly lower than that of group C [10/22 (45.5%) vs. 17/20 (85.0%), χ2 = 5.517, P = 0.019; 7/20 (35.0%) vs. 17/20 (85.0%), χ2 = 11.035, P = 0.004, respectively]. Taking RMB 100,000 Yuan as the threshold of willingness to pay, compared to MTX monotherapy (group C), both TNFi maintenance and triple csDMARDs therapies were cost-effective, but triple csDMARDs therapy was better.

CONCLUSION

For RA patients who have achieved LDA with TNFi and MTX, csDMARDs triple therapy was a cost-effective option in favor of reducing relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320630.

Comparison between leflunomide and sulfasalazine based triple therapy in methotrexate refractory rheumatoid arthritis: an open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

To compare efficacy and safety of two different combination csDMARD therapy in Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients. In this 24-week open-label, parallel-group non-inferiority, single-center clinical trial, Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease duration < 2 years, were randomized to either of the two treatment regimens-Methotrexate + Leflunomide + Hydroxychloroquine or Methotrexate + Sulfasalazine + Hydroxychloroquine. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving EULAR good response at 12 weeks. Non-inferiority of Leflunomide based therapy was confirmed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of treatment difference between the 2 groups was lower than the selected non-inferiority margin of (- 20%) in primary endpoint at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were improvement in DAS28, functional outcome and adverse events at 24 weeks. 136 eligible patients were randomized to either Leflunomide or Sulfasalazine group (68 in each group).63 and 59 patients in Leflunomide and 66 and 61 patients in Sulfasalazine group completed 12 and 24 weeks of trial, respectively. In Intension-to-treat analysis, EULAR good response was achieved by 58.8% and 54.4% patients (p = 0.7) at the end of 12 weeks, and 61.7% and 64.7% patients (p = 0.8) at the end of 24 weeks-in Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine group respectively. At 12 weeks, the difference in EULAR good response with 2-sided 95% confidence interval between 2 groups was 4.4% (- 12%, 20%) in intention-to-treat and 5.8% (- 11%, 23%) in perprotocol analysis.15 and 21 adverse events were recorded in Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine group respectively. Parenteral Methotrexate was required more in Sulfasalazine group due to gastrointestinal intolerance. Leflunomide based csDMARD therapy is non-inferior to Sulfasalazine based csDMARD therapy in Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients with comparable safety profile. Trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02930343) dated 10.09.2016.

Stimuli-responsive polymeric nanomaterials for rheumatoid arthritis therapy

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a long-term inflammatory disease derived from an autoimmune disorder of the synovial membrane. Current therapeutic strategies for RA mainly aim to hamper the macrophages' proliferation and reduce the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Therefore, the accumulation of therapeutic agents targeted at the inflammatory site should be a crucial therapeutic strategy. Nowadays, the nanocarrier system incorporated with stimuli-responsive property is being intensively studied, showing the potentially tremendous value of specific therapy. Stimuli-responsive (i.e., pH, temperature, light, redox, and enzyme) polymeric nanomaterials, as an important component of nanoparticulate carriers, have been intensively developed for various diseases treatment. A survey of the literature suggests that the use of targeted nanocarriers to deliver therapeutic agents (nanotherapeutics) in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis remains largely unexplored. The lack of suitable stimuli-sensitive polymeric nanomaterials is one of the limitations. Herein, we provide an overview of drug delivery systems prepared from commonly used stimuli-sensitive polymeric nanomaterials and some inorganic agents that have potential in the treatment of RA. The current situation and challenges are also discussed to stimulate a novel thinking about the development of nanomedicine.

The Association of Methotrexate, Sulfasalazine, and Hydroxychloroquine Use With Fracture in Postmenopausal Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Findings From the Women's Health Initiative

This study was conducted to evaluate the extent to which disease‐modifying antirheumatic medications (DMARDs) used as part of a triple therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) including methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine are associated with fractures in postmenopausal women with RA. Incident fractures following use of methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and/or hydroxychloroquine in postmenopausal women with RA in the Women's Health Initiative were estimated by Cox proportional hazards using hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs after consideration of potential confounders. There were 1201 women with RA enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative included in these analyses, of which 74% were white, 17% were black, and 9% were of other or unknown race/ethnicity. Of the women with RA, 421 (35%) had not used methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or hydroxychloroquine, whereas 519 (43%) women had used methotrexate, 83 (7%) sulfasalazine, and 363 (30%) hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination at some time during study follow‐up. Over a median length of 6.46 years of follow‐up, in multivariable adjusted models, no statistically significant association was found between methotrexate (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8–1.6), sulfasalazine (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2–1.5), or hydroxychloroquine (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7–1.5) use and incident fractures or between combination therapy with methotrexate and sulfasalazine or methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine use (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5–1.6) and incident fractures. In conclusion, postmenopausal women with RA receiving any component of triple therapy should not be expected to have any substantial reduction in fracture risk from use of these DMARDs. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Update on the Pathomechanism, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that involves multiple joints bilaterally. It is characterized by an inflammation of the tendon (tenosynovitis) resulting in both cartilage destruction and bone erosion. While until the 1990s RA frequently resulted in disability, inability to work, and increased mortality, newer treatment options have made RA a manageable disease. Here, great progress has been made in the development of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which target inflammation and thereby prevent further joint damage. The available DMARDs are subdivided into (1) conventional synthetic DMARDs (methotrexate, hydrochloroquine, and sulfadiazine), (2) targeted synthetic DMARDs (pan-JAK- and JAK1/2-inhibitors), and (3) biologic DMARDs (tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors, TNF-receptor (R) inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, IL-6R inhibitors, B cell depleting antibodies, and inhibitors of co-stimulatory molecules). While DMARDs have repeatedly demonstrated the potential to greatly improve disease symptoms and prevent disease progression in RA patients, they are associated with considerable side-effects and high financial costs. This review summarizes our current understanding of the underlying pathomechanism, diagnosis of RA, as well as the mode of action, clinical benefits, and side-effects of the currently available DMARDs.

Recent Advances in Nanotheranostics for Treat-to-Target of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Early diagnosis, standardized treatment, and regular monitoring are the clinical treatment principle of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The overarching principles and recommendations of treat-to-target (T2T) in RA advocate remission as the optimum aim, especially for patients with very early disease who are initiating therapy with anti-RA medications. However, traditional anti-RA drugs cannot selectively target the inflammatory areas and may cause serious side effects due to its short biological half-life and poor bioavailability. These limitations have significantly driven the research and application of nanomaterial-based drugs in theranostics of RA. Nanomedicines have appropriate sizes and easily modified surfaces which can enhance their biological compatibility and prolong circulation time of drug-loading systems in vivo. Traditional T2T regimens cannot evaluate the efficacy of drugs in real time, while clinical drug nanosizing can realize the integration of diagnosis and treatment of RA. This review bridges clinically proposed T2T concepts and nanomedicine in an integrated system for RA early-stage diagnosis and treatment. The most advanced progress in various nanodrug delivery systems for theranostics of RA is summarized, establishing a clear path and a new perspective for further optimization of T2T. Finally, the key facing challenges are discussed and prospects are addressed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of etanercept plus methotrexate vs triple therapy in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of etanercept plus methotrexate (ETN+MTX) compared to triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The 134 Chinese RA patients who were about to initiate ETN+MTX or triple DMARDs therapy based on treat-to-target strategy were consecutively recruited and categorized into ETN+MTX group (N = 49) or triple DMARDs group (N = 85). Treatment efficacy was assessed at month 3 (M3)/M6/M9/M12 after initiation of treatment. Also, 1-year treatment cost was evaluated, and cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

RA patients in ETN+MTX group exhibited similar disease activity and quality of life at each time point while elevated 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) change (M0-M12) and low disease activity rate compared with triple DMARDs group. For 1-year treatment cost, ETN+MTX required increased drug cost, decreased other medical cost, and finally elevated total cost compared with triple DMARDs. Meanwhile, compared to triple DMARDs, ETN+MTX produced an additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.015, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥2,939,506.7 per QALY that was 53.1 folds of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. More interestingly, sensitivity analysis revealed that the ETN price had to be reduced at least by 71.3% before ETN+MTX became cost-effectiveness compared to triple DMARDs.

CONCLUSION

ETN+MTX is less cost-effective in treating Chinese RA patients compared with triple DMARDs.

Joint Estimation of Remission and Response for Methotrexate-Based DMARD Options in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Bivariate Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

To jointly estimate American College of Rheumatology (ACR50) response (a more commonly reported outcome) and remission (a more clinically relevant outcome) for methotrexate (MTX)‐based treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We conducted a bivariate network meta‐analysis (NMA) to compare MTX monotherapy and MTX‐based conventional and biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations for RA. The correlation between the outcomes was derived from an incident RA cohort study, whereas the treatment effects were derived from randomized trials in the network of evidence. The analyses were conducted separately for MTX‐naïve and MTX–inadequate response (IR) populations in a Bayesian framework with uninformative priors.

Results

From the cohort study, the correlation between ACR50 response and Disease Activity Score 28 remission at 6 months was moderate (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.58). In the bivariate NMA for MTX‐naïve populations, most combinations of MTX with either biologic or tofacitinib were statistically superior to MTX alone for both ACR50 response and remission. Triple therapy (MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) was the only nonbiologic DMARD statistically superior to MTX for either ACR50 response (odds ratio [OR] 95% credible interval: 2.1 [1.0, 4.3]) or remission (OR: 2.5 [1.0, 5.8]). In the MTX‐IR analysis, all treatments except MTX + sulfasalazine were statistically superior to MTX alone. Compared to analyzing the outcomes separately, the bivariate model often resulted in more precise estimates and allowed remission to be estimated for all treatments.

Conclusion

Borrowing the strength of correlation between outcomes allowed us to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit for remission across most MTX‐based DMARD combinations, including triple therapy.

A novel arthritis model induced by wind, damp, cold and heat in female rats

Animal models are in constant development to benefit scientific research. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered a very complex disease due to its complicated pathogenesis, and patients with rheumatic disease around the world are still unable to obtain effective, simple and curable treatment. In order to obtain a clear insight into the pathogenesis of RA, a rat model was established based on the concept of Bi syndrome in Traditional Chinese Medicine by simulating the conditions of RA as much as possible via the change in the physical conditions wind, damp, cold and heat (WDCH). For the first time, a new WDCH-induced RA model in female rats was successfully established and evaluated by body-weight change, paw swelling, blood cells analysis, spleen and thymus coefficients, autoantibodies and serum cytokine changes and histopathology. This model is characterised by its objectivity, no exogenous induction, short modelling time, extremely elevated expression level of autoantibodies and obvious histopathological change. The establishment of such a new model may provide more benefits in the research of the pathogenesis of RA.

Defining response to TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: the negative impact of anti-TNF cycling and the need for a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders

Current guidelines recommend treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to reach low disease activity or remission, however, most biologic-naive RA patients fail to reach treatment targets on their first biologic therapy. Approximately 90% of biologic-naive RA patients receive a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (anti-TNF) as their first biologic treatment, even though several alternative mechanism of action (MOA) therapies are approved as first-line options. After 3 months of therapy, patients may remain on anti-TNF therapy even if they fail to achieve the treatment target, mainly due to formulary structures. This means patients have to endure a second and even a third ineffective anti-TNF-called anti-TNF cycling-before changing MOA. This significantly delays patients from reaching their treatment targets. All anti-TNF drugs target the same molecular and inflammatory pathways; thus, it is not surprising that most patients who are primary non-responders to their initial anti-TNF therapy fail to achieve their treatment targets when cycled through alternative anti-TNFs. This suggests that primary non-responders should be switched to an alternative MOA therapy rather than enduring anti-TNF cycling. Avoiding anti-TNF cycling would prevent disease progression and improve quality of life for RA patients who are primary non-responders to anti-TNFs. The development of a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders to anti-TNFs prior to treatment would allow significantly more patients to reach their treatment target by treating them with alternative MOA therapies as first-line therapies.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2019 updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology

The expanding range of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), biosimilar bDMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, has improved patient outcomes but increased the complexity of treatment decisions. These updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology provide guidance on the management of RA, with a focus on how to integrate newly available DMARDs into clinical practice. The recommendations were developed based on evidence from the literature along with local expert opinion. Early diagnosis of RA and prompt initiation of effective therapy remain crucial and we suggest a treat-to-target approach to guide optimal sequencing of DMARDs in RA patients to achieve tight disease control. Newly available DMARDs are incorporated in the treatment algorithm, resulting in a greater range of second-line treatment options. In the event of treatment failure or intolerance, switching to another DMARD with a similar or different mode of action may be considered. Given the variety of available treatments and the heterogeneity of patients with RA, treatment decisions should be tailored to the individual patient taking into consideration prognostic factors, medical comorbidities, drug safety, cost of treatment, and patient preference.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment. A Back to the Drawing Board Project or High Expectations for Low Unmet Needs?

Despite the significant progress in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) therapeutics, there are several reports in the literature claiming that the size of unmet needs in RA is large. In the era before biologics, there was indeed a significant number of patients who did not achieve low disease activity (LDA) or disease remission due to limited therapeutic choices in the doctors' armamentarium. Treatment wise, great progress has been achieved over the last decades with the discovery and introduction in therapeutics of new molecules, such as the biological (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and the targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs. Today, with such a plethora of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs, tsDMARDs, and bDMARDs, why are we unable to successfully treat RA patients? What is wrong? However, a new drug for RA does not mean it is necessary to switch to a new treatment. It is very easy to change and switch therapies when the patient complains about pain and stiffness. In this setting, it is obligatory to rule out other comorbidities and disorders that may be the cause of the pain first. Thus, clinicians must have a deep knowledge of the drug therapy and be able to adjust the treatment when needed. A minute clinical examination must be carried out on every visit with close monitoring of the patient. A treat-to-target (T2T) approach and the application of the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) recommendations and strategies should minimize the unmet needs.

How to Get the Most from Methotrexate (MTX) Treatment for Your Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient?-MTX in the Treat-to-Target Strategy

Methotrexate (MTX) is a remarkable drug with a key role in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at every stage of its evolution. Its attributes include good overall efficacy for signs and symptoms, inhibition of structural damage and preservation of function with acceptable and manageable safety, a large dose-titratable range, options for either an oral or parenteral route of administration, and currently unrivalled cost-effectiveness. It has a place as a monotherapy and also as an anchor drug that can be safely used in combination with other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or used concomitantly with biological DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. MTX is not without potential issues regarding toxicity, notably hepatotoxicity and bone marrow toxicity, as well as tolerability problems for some, but not all, patients. But many of these issues can be mitigated or managed. In the face of a welcome expansion in available targeted therapies for the treatment of RA, MTX looks set to remain at the foundation of pharmacotherapy for the majority of people living with RA and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases. In this article, we provide an evidence-based discussion as to how to achieve the best outcomes with this versatile drug in the context of a treat-to-target strategy for the management of RA.

Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) Recommendations for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: 2018 Update Under Guidance of Current Recommendations

Objectives

This study aims to report the assessment of the Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) expert panel on the compliance and adaptation of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2016 recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Turkey.

Patients and methods

The EULAR 2016 recommendations for the treatment of RA were voted by 27 specialists experienced in this field with regard to participation rate for each recommendation and significance of items. Afterwards, each recommendation was brought forward for discussion and any alteration gaining ≥70% approval was accepted. Also, Turkish version of each item was rearranged. Last version of the recommendations was then revoted to determine the level of agreement. Levels of agreement of the two voting rounds were compared with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In case of significant difference, the item with higher level of agreement was accepted. In case of no difference, the changed item was selected.

Results

Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were assessed among which three overarching principles and one recommendation were changed. The changed overarching principles emphasized the importance of physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists as well as rheumatologists for the care of RA patients in Turkey. An alteration was made in the eighth recommendation on treatment of active RA patients with unfavorable prognostic indicators after failure of three conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Remaining principles were accepted as the same although some alterations were suggested but could not find adequate support to reach significance.

Conclusion

Expert opinion of the TLAR for the treatment of RA was composed for practices in Turkish rheumatology and/or physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics.

Efficacy and Safety of Combined Therapy With Synthetic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

1) To systematically and critically review the evidence of combined therapy with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 2) To design practical recommendations on their use.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed with a sensitive bibliographic search strategy in Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. We selected randomized clinical trials that analyzed the efficacy and/or safety of 1) combined therapy of synthetic compared with sequential therapy of synthetic DMARD in early RA; and 2) combination of methotrexate+leflunomide or triple therapy with synthetic DMARD in established RA refractory to synthetic DMARD. Two reviewers made the first selection by title and abstract and 11 performed the selection after detailed review of the articles and data collection. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the Jadad scale. Based on the results, related recommendations were agreed upon in a nominal group meeting.

RESULTS

Ultimately, no articles were included in the SLR. The analysis of the reviewed articles demonstrated the effectiveness of the treatment with synthetic DMARD following a "treat to target" strategy in early RA patients, and of combination therapy of synthetic DMARD in established RA refractory to synthetic DMARD. This resulted in 6 recommendations concerning combination therapy with synthetic DMARD.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations aim to facilitate decision-making with the use of combined therapy with DMARD in RA.