Comparison of azathioprine, methotrexate, and the combination of the two in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A forty-eight-week controlled clinical trial with radiologic outcome assessment

A large-scale Boolean model of the rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes predicts drug synergies in the arthritic joint

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex autoimmune disease with an unknown aetiology. However, rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes (RA-FLS) play a significant role in initiating and perpetuating destructive joint inflammation by expressing immuno-modulating cytokines, adhesion molecules, and matrix remodelling enzymes. In addition, RA-FLS are primary drivers of inflammation, displaying high proliferative rates and an apoptosis-resistant phenotype. Thus, RA-FLS-directed therapies could become a complementary approach to immune-directed therapies by predicting the optimal conditions that would favour RA-FLS apoptosis, limit inflammation, slow the proliferation rate and minimise bone erosion and cartilage destruction. In this paper, we present a large-scale Boolean model for RA-FLS that consists of five submodels focusing on apoptosis, cell proliferation, matrix degradation, bone erosion and inflammation. The five-phenotype-specific submodels can be simulated independently or as a global model. In silico simulations and perturbations reproduced the expected biological behaviour of the system under defined initial conditions and input values. The model was then used to mimic the effect of mono or combined therapeutic treatments and predict novel targets and drug candidates through drug repurposing analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Parenteral Methotrexate for the Treatment of Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Despite worldwide use of parenteral methotrexate (pMTX), health economic evidence for its use in Crohn's disease (CD) is limited. The low price of this generic drug has removed any commercial incentive to further invest in research. However, there is an unmet need for treatment of mild-to-moderate CD, since biological/targeted therapies are usually reserved for patients with more severe disease due to the higher costs of these treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pMTX compared to the standard of care (SOC, i.e., high doses of oral corticosteroids (hdCS) followed by gradual tapering) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CD in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

We developed a 3-year Markov model with a 1-week cycle length comprising five health states. The model projected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs from the healthcare payers' perspective. Efficacy data were obtained from a systematic literature review of clinical trials and extrapolated using survival analysis.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year time-horizon, pMTX yields additional 0.111 QALYs (1.798 vs. 1.687) at an additional cost of €513 (€3087 vs. €2574), with an incremental deterministic (probabilistic) cost-effectiveness ratio of €4627 (€4742)/QALY, far below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (≈ €47,000/QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of pMTX being cost-effective was 100%. A one-way sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed the robustness of the base-case result.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral MTX proved to be cost-effective in patients with mild-to-moderate CD. This is the first published cost-effectiveness analysis of pMTX for this indication. It also shows an example of a lack of valuation of generic therapy despite its cost-effectiveness and a clear benefit to the healthcare system.

A novel combination of astilbin and low-dose methotrexate respectively targeting A2AAR and its ligand adenosine for the treatment of collagen-induced arthritis

Methotrexate (MTX) is widely used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment with frequently serious adverse effects. Therefore, combination of low-dose MTX with other drugs is often used in clinic. In this study, we investigated the improvement of astilbin and low-dose MTX combination on collagen-induced arthritis in DBA/1J mice. Results showed that the clinic score, incidence rate, paw swelling, pathological changes of joints and rheumatoid factors were more alleviated in combination therapy than MTX or astilbin alone group. Elevated antibodies (IgG, IgG1, IgG2a, IgM and anti-collagen IgG) and pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ and IL-17A) in serum were significantly inhibited, while anti-inflammatory cytokine, IL-10, was enhanced by combination therapy. Further studies indicated that combination therapy significantly decreased Th1 and Th17 cell differentiation and increased Treg cell differentiation. Mechanisms analysis demonstrated combination therapy greatly inhibited Con A-activated MAPK and inflammatory transcriptional signals. Moreover, MTX activated adenosine release and astilbin specifically up-regulated A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR) expression simultaneously, which most probably contributed to the synergistic efficacy of combination therapy. ZM241385, a specific antagonist of A_2AAR, greatly blocked the effects of combination therapy on T cell functions and downstream pathways. All these findings suggest that astilbin is a valuable candidate for low-dose MTX combined therapy in RA via increasing A_2AAR/adenosine system and decreasing ERK/NFκB/STATs signals.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Unraveling the conundrum

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease with a complex and yet not fully understood pathophysiology, where numerous different cell-types contribute to a destructive process of the joints. This complexity results into a considerable interpatient variability in clinical course and severity, which may additionally involve genetics and/or environmental factors. After three decades of focused efforts scientists have now achieved to apply in clinical practice, for patients with RA, the "treat to target" approach with initiation of aggressive therapy soon after diagnosis and escalation of the therapy in pursuit of clinical remission. In addition to the conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, biologics have greatly improved the management of RA, demonstrating efficacy and safety in alleviating symptoms, inhibiting bone erosion, and preventing loss of function. Nonetheless, despite the plethora of therapeutic options and their combinations, unmet therapeutic needs in RA remain, as current therapies sometimes fail or produce only partial responses and/or develop unwanted side-effects. Unfortunately the mechanisms of 'nonresponse' remain unknown and most probable lie in the unrevealed heterogeneity of the RA pathophysiology. In this review, through the effort of unraveling the complex pathophysiological pathways, we will depict drugs used throughout the years for the treatment of RA, the current and future biological therapies and their molecular or cellular targets and finally will suggest therapeutic algorithms for RA management. With multiple biologic options, there is still a need for strong predictive biomarkers to determine which drug is most likely to be effective, safe, and durable in a given individual. The fact that available biologics are not effective in all patients attests to the heterogeneity of RA, yet over the long term, as research and treatment become more aggressive, efficacy, toxicity, and costs must be balanced within the therapeutic equation to enhance the quality of life in patients with RA.

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.

Methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the biologic era: still an "anchor" drug?

The improvement of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management has been strictly related to methotrexate (MTX) long-term effectiveness, safety profile and its widespread use in clinical practice over the last decades. According to the results of several head-to-head comparative trials against other synthetic DMARDs, MTX has been recognised as the "anchor drug" for the treatment of RA at the end of the 1990s. The subsequent increasing knowledge in the area of RA pathophysiology has progressively expanded the arsenal of available therapeutic tools, especially by the introduction of novel drugs such as biological DMARDs. The introduction of therapies targeted to key molecules and cells involved in RA pathogenesis has significantly changed the strategies for disease management, possibly modifying the key role of MTX. This review first analyses data supporting the evolution of MTX towards the role of "anchor drug" for RA in the pre-biologic era. We will then examine how the introduction and progressive spreading of biological agents could have modified the central role of MTX in the approach to RA.

Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: head-to-head trials and innovative study designs

Over the last decades, the increasing knowledge in the area of rheumatoid arthritis has progressively expanded the arsenal of available drugs, especially with the introduction of novel targeted therapies such as biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In this situation, rheumatologists are offered a wide range of treatment options, but on the other side the need for comparisons between available drugs becomes more and more crucial in order to better define the strategies for the choice and the optimal sequencing. Indirect comparisons or meta-analyses of data coming from different randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not immune to conceptual and technical challenges and often provide inconsistent results. In this review we examine some of the possible evolutions of traditional RCTs, such as the inclusion of active comparators, aimed at individualising treatments in real-life conditions. Although head-to-head RCTs may be considered the best tool to directly compare the efficacy and safety of two different DMARDs, surprisingly only 20 studies with such design have been published in the last 25 years. Given the recent advent of the first RCTs truly comparing biological DMARDs, we also review the state of the art of head-to-head trials in RA.

Current immunotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common autoimmune disease primarily manifesting as chronic synovitis, subsequently leading to a change in joint integrity. Progressive disability and systemic complications are strongly associated with a decreased quality of life. To maintain function and health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, early, aggressive and guided immunosuppressive therapy is required to induce clinical remission. Antirheumatic drugs are capable of controlling synovial inflammation and are therefore named 'disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs' (DMARDs). This article aims to bridge the beginning of DMARD therapy with agents such as methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, injectable gold and (hydroxy)chloroquine with biological therapies, and with the new era of kinase inhibitors. Mechanisms of action, as well as advantages and disadvantages of DMARDs, are discussed with respect to the current literature and current recommendations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: state of the art 2009

Few, if any, areas of medical therapeutics have witnessed such dramatic changes as those that have occurred in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the past two decades. Improvements in clinical trials methodologies, the introduction of no fewer than nine biologic agents with distinct mechanisms of action, and the development of better strategies for the use of such agents have all contributed to the new age in RA therapeutics. Here, we review these developments and attempt to describe the current landscape of RA therapy in terms of available treatments, agreed-upon principles of RA management, as well as some important controversies in this field. Despite the great pace at which developments are moving, a treatment-free remission for patients with RA remains an elusive goal and unmet medical needs remain. The quest for better therapies for this potentially devastating disease is still as important as ever; research in this exciting area is ongoing, and it is reasonable to hope that, during the next decade, developments will lead to improved, rationally designed, targeted therapies for RA.

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

Objective:

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

Method:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

A meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of combining disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis based on patient withdrawal

INTRODUCTION

Combinations of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are increasingly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Early trials showed their toxicity while recent trials suggest superior efficacy. Trials of DMARD combinations have enrolled different types of patient (early or established RA), used different designs (step-up, parallel or step-down) and utilized a range of outcome measures. We undertook a systematic review of combination DMARD therapy for RA and carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the evidence for efficacy and toxicity.

METHOD

Medline, PubMed and EmBase were searched using MESH headlines 'arthritis, rheumatoid', 'drug therapy, combination' and 'randomized controlled trial' (RCT) for papers published from 1975 to April 2004. References from published articles were also searched. Three independent assessors evaluated abstracts and selected trials for detailed examination. Trials were excluded if their quality was poor, were not published in English or studied DMARDs not licensed to treat RA. Two independent assessors extracted data. Efficacy was assessed by the numbers of patients withdrawn due to lack of efficacy. Toxicity was assessed by the numbers of patients withdrawn due to adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and meta-analysis was carried out based on a random effects model. Sensitivity analyses evaluated different treatment combinations, trial designs, study populations and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Fifty-three potentially relevant RCTs were identified. Twelve were excluded due to: using unlicensed DMARDs (n = 3); reporting in journal supplements of RCTs already included (n = 2); follow-up of an earlier RCT, report of biological outcomes or pharmacokinetics (n = 5); and non-English language publications (n = 2). Forty-one RCTs were evaluated in detail and another five excluded (three open-labelled studies and two with high patient attrition); 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. These comprised 13 step-up, 16 parallel and 7 step-down trials. Nine assessed early RA and 27 established RA. Seven added steroids to DMARD monotherapy and one study added steroids to DMARD combinations. Six assessed methotrexate (MTX) plus tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Overall, combination DMARD therapy was more effective than monotherapy (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.28, 0.45) although the risk of toxicity was also slightly higher (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16, 1.62). Combinations of MTX with TNF inhibitors and MTX with sulphasalazine or anti-malarials showed good efficacy/toxicity ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

DMARD combinations vary in their efficacy/toxicity ratio. MTX plus sulphasalazine and/or anti-malarials and MTX plus TNF inhibitors have particularly favourable benefit/risk ratios.

Methotrexate in inflammatory bowel disease

Over the past decade methotrexate has emerged as a new treatment for chronically active Crohn's disease. Although controlled trials to compare the relative efficacy and safety of azathioprine and methotrexate in therapy-resistant patients are desirable, these studies will be difficult, if not impossible, to conduct because of the relatively small differences in potency and tolerability between these agents. A more productive area for future investigations is to explore the use of these drugs in combination with infliximab and other biologic treatments.

Combination therapy with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis

There is increasing interest in using combinations of two or more disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The use of such combinations is increasing in routine clinical practice. We have identified 18 well-conducted, randomised controlled trials of the use of combinations of disease modifying drugs, and a number of open studies that provide helpful supportive information. The 18 trials involved 2221 patients. Two trials reported strongly positive results, six reported moderately positive results and ten gave largely negative results. The combination of methotrexate, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine appears to be effective with an acceptable level of adverse effects. There is also evidence that the combination of methotrexate and cyclosporin is advantageous. With both combinations, there appears to be further advantages from using corticosteroids in addition to the combination, although the evidence for this is incomplete. The use of other combinations is of less value, and in particular combinations involving parenteral gold, penicillamine and azathioprine are best avoided. Finally, there is growing evidence from randomised trials that the combination of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy with methotrexate is effective and well tolerated. We have identified four randomised controlled trials of the use of combinations of anti-TNF with methotrexate that all reported results favouring this combination. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of other combinations involving immunotherapies at the present time.

Old and new drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: a historical perspective. Part 1: the older drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis is the paradigmatic immune-mediated inflammatory arthropathy and may be of comparatively recent, New World origin. Apart from the symptom-relieving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whose natural congeners have been in use since antiquity for musculoskeletal pain and inflammation, only a dozen drugs or drug classes--the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs--are currently in common use in rheumatoid arthritis. Development of these drugs has been a notable achievement of the 20th century. Some were developed serendipitously (glucocorticoids, antimalarials), some were the product of faulty reasoning (gold, D-penicillamine), and others were applied for plausible reasons but whose mechanism remains unproven (sulfasalazine, methotrexate, minocycline). A minority were originally applied on the basis of actions that remain germane to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis as currently understood (azathioprine, cyclosporine, leflunomide, infliximab, etanercept). Among the latter are the more recently introduced and effective agents. The practical use of these drugs is determined by efficacy-toxicity considerations, which have also driven the recent development of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Where is imaging going in rheumatology?

Four new approaches to imaging are now becoming available. First is filmless radiology, with flat detectors that 'permit access' to PACS, the picture archiving communication system, and teleteaching. Second is ultrasonography (US), involving three-dimensional volume, harmonic Doppler energy and digital technology techniques, with contrast agents and biopsy needles. Next is computer tomography (CT), using volume acquisition multislices, spiral reconstruction and solid detectors, as well as multidetectors. Finally comes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A low magnetic field with an open MRI scan permits interventional radiology in musculoskeletal disease. High magnetic fields are mainly used for clinical research and permit rapid examination, in approximately 10 minutes. In interventional radiology, many procedures can be performed with the guidance of digital radiography, US or MRI. Two areas of localization have to be considered: the spine and the peripheral joints, particularly the shoulder, wrist and foot. Guidelines contribute to good medical practice, but there are other considerations, such as machine accessibility, the nature of the treatment, the personality of the patient and the role of the hospital. Overinvestigation has to be avoided for four reasons: an increase in patient anxiety, the cost of health-care management, the risk of irradiation and sometimes the lack of diagnostic value of these procedures. In rheumatoid arthritis, MRI can detect lesions at an earlier stage of their development and identify subtle lesions and synovitis. Imaging (using x-rays, MRI and US) is important in the assessment of the effectiveness of slow-acting drugs in rheumatoid arthritis, especially since joint damage can progress in spite of a clinical improvement in joint inflammation. In the future, teletransmission, by the Internet or intranet and using PACS, will change our approach to the diagnosis of musculoskeletal disease. Future developments therefore include PACS, filmless radiology, the Internet and intranet, harmonic US, multidetector CT scanning and open MRI on the technical side, as well as the study of cartilage and international radiology on the clinical side.

A comparison of methotrexate with placebo for the maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. North American Crohn's Study Group Investigators

BACKGROUND

Patients with Crohn's disease often have relapses. Better treatments are needed for the maintenance of remission. Although methotrexate is an effective short-term treatment for Crohn's disease, its role in maintaining remissions is not known.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of patients with chronically active Crohn's disease who had entered remission after 16 to 24 weeks of treatment with 25 mg of methotrexate given intramuscularly once weekly. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate at a dose of 15 mg intramuscularly once weekly or placebo for 40 weeks. No other treatments for Crohn's disease were permitted. We compared the efficacy of treatment by analyzing the proportion of patients who remained in remission at week 40. Remission was defined as a score of 150 or less on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index.

RESULTS

Forty patients received methotrexate, and 36 received placebo. At week 40, 26 patients (65 percent) were in remission in the methotrexate group, as compared with 14 (39 percent) in the placebo group (P=0.04; absolute reduction in the risk of relapse, 26.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.4 percent to 47.8 percent). Fewer patients in the methotrexate group than in the placebo group required prednisone for relapse (11 of 40 [28 percent] vs. 21 of 36 [58 percent], P=0.01). None of the patients who received methotrexate had a severe adverse event; one patient in this group withdrew because of nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with Crohn's disease who enter remission after treatment with methotrexate, a low dose of methotrexate maintains remission.

Dramatic response after an intravenous loading dose of azathioprine in one case of severe and refractory ankylosing spondylitis

We describe a 37-yr-old Caucasian male suffering from ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with long-standing severe inflammatory lumbar pain and hip arthritis who was refractory to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, sulphasalazine and methotrexate up to 25 mg/week. In this patient, administration of an i.v. loading dose of azathioprine (AZA; 40 mg/kg for 36 h followed by 2 mg/kg oral AZA therapy) induced a dramatic response in his clinical condition. Indeed, objective and subjective clinical variables improved within 1 week and were corroborated by a decline in the levels of the inflammatory parameters; anaemia was reported at month 3 but was rapidly reversible. If confirmed, an i.v. loading dose of AZA could represent a valuable alternative in severe and refractory AS, but toxicity of this regimen should be carefully analysed.

Pharmacotherapeutic combination strategies with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis

Pharmacotherapy is still the cornerstone in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Due to several reasons the pharmacotherapeutic strategy has changed dramatically in the past decades. It has become clear that in most cases single treatment with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is insufficient to control the disease on the long term. This is the main reason why combinations of second-line agents are increasingly being used in the treatment of established RA. Many different ways of prescribing combination treatment and a large number of different combinations have been published. However definite conclusions which drugs to combine or what strategy to apply are difficult to make as solid studies which enable these conclusions are sparse. Several studies have shown that the best opportunity to achieve a good response is to use a set-up approach, in addition different studies have shown that corticosteroids do have a profound effect on disease activity variables.

Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the potential clinical benefit of a combination therapy.

METHODS

205 patients fulfilling the ACR criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), not treated with disease modifying antirheumatoid drugs previously, with an early (< or = 1 year duration), active (Disease Activity Score (DAS) > 3.0), rheumatoid factor and/or HLA DR 1/4 positive disease were randomised between sulphasalazine (SASP) 2000 (maximum 3000) mg daily (n = 68), or methotrexate (MTX) 7.5 (maximum 15) mg weekly (n = 69) or the combination (SASP + MTX) of both (n = 68).

RESULTS

The mean changes in the DAS during the one year follow up of the study was -1.15, -0.87, -1.26 in the SASP, MTX, and SASP + MTX group respectively (p = 0.019). However, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of either EULAR good responders 34%, 38%, 38% or ACR criteria responders 59%, 59%, 65% in the SASP, MTX, and SASP + MTX group respectively. Radiological progression evaluated by the modified Sharp score was very modest in the three groups: mean changes in erosion score: +2.4, +2.4, +1.9, in narrowing score: +2.3, +2.1, +1.6 and in total damage score: +4.6, +4.5, +3.5, in the SASP, MTX, and SASP + MTX groups respectively. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the SASP + MTX group 91% versus 75% in the SASP and MTX group (p = 0.025). Nausea was the most frequent side effect: 32%, 23%, 49% in the SASP, MTX, and SASP + MTX groups respectively (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that an early initiation therapy of disease modifying drug seems to be of benefit. However, this study was unable to demonstrate a clinically relevant superiority of the combination therapy although several outcomes were in favour of this observation. The tolerability of the three treatment modalities seems acceptable.

[Treatment of rheumatoid polyarthritis: evolution of concepts and strategies]

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis includes non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), low-dose steroids and drugs which modify the evolution of the disease (disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, [DMARD]). In the last few years, the long-term efficiency of the recommended treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis has been a matter of debate and their basic assumptions have been challenged. Numerous studies were undertaken to settle the question. They tried to delineate the rules for an optimal use of current drugs and other therapeutic means.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Rheumatoid arthritis is a crippling disease. It decreases life expectancy and irreversible bone and joint damage may develop even in the first months of evolution. The sooner the prescription of DMARD, the higher the frequency and quality of rheumatoid arthritis improvement and, in the long-term, the lesser the functional impairment. Low dose steroids, when administered early, can slow down the development of radiologic lesions. Some of their effects are thus closer to those of DMARD than to those of symptomatic treatment. NSAID are at least as equally dangerous as DMARD and possibly more so in terms of the potential number of severe side effects. The combination of several DMARD does not increase their overall toxicity. An evaluation of the most efficient combinations and of the clinical situations in which combinations show promise of improved results is in progress.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

At present, the tendency is to treat early and intensively, in order to obtain complete remission, improve evolution and reduce functional impairment. This strategy requires early diagnosis and early evaluation of prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis with benign evolution would not warrant intensive treatment. Studies are in progress to evaluate the prognostic factors in early rheumatoid arthritis that would enable us to adapt the strength of initial treatment to the disease's putative severity.

A retrospective study of treating RA patients with various combinations of slow-acting antirheumatic drugs in a county hospital

During the period 1/1990-9/1995 a total of 311 RA patients were challenged 458 times with 52 different COMBOs. As the first COMBO methotrexate (MTX), sulphasalazine (SSZ), im gold (GOLD), and hydroxychoroquine (HCQ) were combined with each other in 272/311 cases. The respective six and 12 months survivals of these COMBOs were 68.6% (95% CI 63.0% to 74.3%) and 53.6% (95% CI 47.4% to 59.9%). Inefficacy (27.9%), rather than adverse events (23.5%) or other causes (16.9%) was the leading reason for the discontinuations. Only in five cases (1.8%) these COMBOs were discontinued due to a remission. Not a single adverse event related to a COMBO treatment was judged as serious. The mean survival time for COMBOs including MTX (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.6 to 27.4) was statistically significantly longer than the respective time for COMBOs without MTX (14.5 months; 95% CI 11.2 to 17.7). We conclude that, when meticulously monitored, the treatment with COMBOs is safe. However, their efficacy on patients with advanced RA is modest. The survival time for COMBOs including MTX is longer than COMBOs without MTX.

Methotrexate use in rheumatoid arthritis

To overstate the importance of methotrexate in the contemporary management of rheumatoid arthritis would be difficult. It has achieved this distinction because of its efficacy and tolerability. This article reviews the data on the efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate, discusses caveats for clinical use, examines the use of methotrexate in combination therapy, and speculates on the future use of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis.

Combination treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis with cyclosporine and methotrexate for forty-eight weeks: an open-label extension study. The Methotrexate-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the clinical benefit and favorable safety profile previously noted with the combination of cyclosporine (CSA) and methotrexate (MTX) given for 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would be maintained for a further 24 weeks, and whether the addition of CSA in patients who had previously been randomized to receive placebo + MTX would result in clinical benefit.

METHODS

Eligible subjects from the initial study (weeks 0-24), in which the addition of placebo or CSA to MTX therapy was compared in patients with RA that was partially responsive to MTX, were enrolled. Patients who had received CSA + MTX continued this regimen for a further 24 weeks (weeks 24-48) (group 1; n = 48), and patients who had initially received placebo + MTX now received CSA + MTX for 24 weeks (weeks 24-48) (group 2; n = 44), in an open-label extension study. The primary outcome measures were the number of tender joints, number of swollen joints, physician and patient global assessments, pain, functional disability as measured by the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients enrolled, 80 (87%) completed the extension study. In patients in group 1, the clinically and statistically significant improvement in response outcomes previously noted at week 24, ranging from 25% to 50%, was maintained through week 48. In patients in group 2, the addition of CSA resulted in significant clinical improvement. By week 48, most outcome measures in group 2 patients were similar to those in group 1 patients. CSA treatment resulted in a small increase in serum creatinine levels, but only 1 patient was withdrawn from the study for this reason.

CONCLUSION

The clinical improvement previously observed in patients treated with the CSA + MTX combination for 24 weeks was maintained for 24 subsequent weeks, without serious adverse effects, and was also observed in the patients whose treatment was switched from placebo + MTX to CSA + MTX.

Combination of second-line antirheumatic drugs

Single drug therapy is often not satisfactory in the treatment of chronic arthritis. The combination of second-line antirheumatic drugs is therefore increasingly employed. Various strategies of combining drugs can be used, starting with combinations or adding agents in case of insufficient effect of single therapy. Effective combinations have to be found empirically because lack of knowledge about pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics often hinders rational choices. Few controlled studies on combinations of second-line antirheumatic drugs exist, results suggesting very moderately increased efficacy and increased toxicity. Recently, results of combinations, mainly with methotrexate, have become available. Combining this agent with azathioprine did not offer advantages. Cyclosporin added to insufficiently effective methotrexate possibly has some value and antimalarials combined with methotrexate may be beneficial regarding effectivity and/or toxicity. Methotrexate added to insufficiently effective sulphasalazine seems to be better than methotrexate alone, although this combination when used from the start of the therapy was disappointing. Triple therapy of the latter combination together with hydroxychloroquine turned out to be superior to single methotrexate and to the combination of sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Surprisingly, the toxicity of these combinations was mainly comparable to single therapy. In conclusion, combinations of second-line antirheumatic drugs have a role, although not yet clearly defined, in the therapy of chronic arthritis.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a challenging objective. Recent trends have led to the earlier and more "aggressive" treatment of patients with active disease. This change in outlook is largely the result of the recognition that significant damage can occur fairly soon after the onset of disease. This article reviews the currently available therapies, including a discussion of the benefits and side effects associated with individual agents. In addition, possible approaches to the treatment of RA will be reviewed.