Subcutaneous methotrexate is well tolerated and superior to oral methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Use of parenteral methotrexate in rheumatic diseases: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the efficacy, adherence, patient satisfaction, safety, pharmacodynamics and cost-effectiveness of parenteral methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was carried out in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central from the beginning until June 2019. Studies including adult patients with rheumatic diseases being treated with parenteral MTX were identified and data on efficacy, adherence, satisfaction, safety, pharmacokinetics, and cost-effectiveness analysed. As for the designs, systematic reviews, clinical trials, or observational studies were permitted, including cross-sectional and small-sample studies if they were pharmacokinetic studies.

RESULTS

Out of 4160 identified articles, 80 articles were finally included. The efficacy profile of parenteral MTX seems useful in general and in those patients with insufficient response to oral MTX. The parenteral route does not seem to increase the rate or severity of adverse events due to the use of MTX. The use of parenteral MTX is an appropriate way to reduce costs in patients with inadequate response to oral MTX. Adherence and satisfaction are favoured by training programmes in the use of the parenteral route. The results in rheumatic diseases other than rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are very scarce and do not enable obtaining conclusive data.

CONCLUSIONS

Parenteral MTX can be an alternative to the use of oral MTX, due to its profile of efficacy, safety, adherence and pharmacoeconomic results, especially in those patients with RA.

Drug survival and predictor factors for discontinuation of methotrexate in psoriasis: a real-life multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Drug survival is useful to evaluate long-term drug performance in daily practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate drug survival for methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy in patients with plaque-type psoriasis.

METHODS

We reviewed 3,512 follow-up charts of patients with psoriasis at five tertiary referral centers between January 2012 and January 2020. We analyzed baseline data and treatment outcomes of patients under MTX monotherapy. Drug survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Patients with psoriasis who were treated with MTX monotherapy were enrolled (N = 649). The median duration of drug survival was 15 months (95% CI: 13.2-16.8). The overall drug survival rate was 54.7%, 17.4%, and 8% after 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The main reasons for discontinuation were adverse effects (n = 209, 32.2%) and inefficacy (n = 105, 15.6%). Based on multivariate Cox regression analysis, the presence of nausea/vomiting (HR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.49-2.71; P < 0.001) was observed as a statistically significant risk factor for drug discontinuation. Age over 50 years (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.97; P = 0.03) and using MTX dose ≥15 mg/weekly were positive predictors for drug survival (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.95; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The average drug survival of MTX was 15 months. MTX is still the first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, as highlighted in guidelines. To prevent premature discontinuation, physicians need to look at the response time of at least 16-24 weeks, especially when a stepwise dose increment is used. The presence of nausea/vomiting seemed to be associated with an approximately twofold risk of discontinuation.

Use of Parenteral Methotrexate in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the efficacy, adherence, patient satisfaction, safety, pharmacodynamics and cost-effectiveness of parenteral methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was carried out in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central from the beginning until June 2019. Studies including adult patients with rheumatic diseases being treated with parenteral MTX were identified and data on efficacy, adherence, satisfaction, safety, pharmacokinetics, and cost-effectiveness analysed. As for the designs, systematic reviews, clinical trials, or observational studies were permitted, including cross-sectional and small-sample studies if they were pharmacokinetic studies.

RESULTS

Out of 4160 identified articles, 80 articles were finally included. The efficacy profile of parenteral MTX seems useful in general and in those patients with insufficient response to oral MTX. The parenteral route does not seem to increase the rate or severity of adverse events due to the use of MTX. The use of parenteral MTX is an appropriate way to reduce costs in patients with inadequate response to oral MTX. Adherence and satisfaction are favoured by training programmes in the use of the parenteral route. The results in rheumatic diseases other than rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are very scarce and do not enable obtaining conclusive data.

CONCLUSIONS

Parenteral MTX can be an alternative to the use of oral MTX, due to its profile of efficacy, safety, adherence and pharmacoeconomic results, especially in those patients with RA.

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.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the USA: premature use of tumor necrosis factor inhibition and underutilization of concomitant methotrexate

Purpose

The objective of this study was to assess the treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the USA.

Patients and methods

This study entailed analysis of claims data for patients with RA who initiated treatment with oral methotrexate (MTX) or a biologic in 2009 (n=48,910) or 2012 (n=107,636) and had follow-up for 4 years (2009 cohort) or 2 years (2012 cohort).

Results

A biologic was initiated before MTX for 27% of the 2009 cohort and 36% of the 2012 cohort. Concomitant use of MTX and a biologic declined from 74.1% (2009 cohort) to 45.4% (2012 cohort).

Conclusion

MTX is underused in the treatment of RA in the USA.

Update on subcutaneous methotrexate for inflammatory arthritis and psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) is one of the mainstays of treatment for several immune-mediated inflammatory joint and skin diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Oral MTX has been used for the treatment of such diseases for decades for many reasons. There is, however, a relevant interpatient variability of clinical and safety outcomes that can also be related to differences in patients’ individual pharmacogenomic profile. Orally administered MTX has been found to have a saturable intestinal absorption and nonlinear pharmacokinetics, with significant consequences on drug bioavailability and clinical efficacy. The current evidence shows that parenterally administered MTX results in rapid and complete absorption, higher serum levels, and less variable exposure than oral dosing. The use of parenteral MTX, particularly when administered as a subcutaneous (SC) injection, has recently raised great interest in order to overcome the limitations of oral MTX. The effectiveness and safety of SC MTX have mostly been assessed in rheumatological settings, especially in patients with RA. There are only a limited number of data on SC MTX in juvenile idiopathic arthritis and even fewer in psoriatic disease. Various clinical experiences have suggested that SC MTX is more effective than oral MTX and may provide significant benefit even in patients in whom oral MTX proved to be inadequate. The increased efficacy of SC MTX resulting from higher drug exposure compared with oral MTX has been associated with a similar safety profile and in various reports even with a lower frequency of gastrointestinal complaints. The aim of this article was to review the available literature data on SC MTX treatment of inflammatory arthritis, with special emphasis on RA and psoriasis, examining differences with oral MTX treatment. A brief mention of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic features and pharmacoeconomic considerations is also given.

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.

Recommendations for the use of parenteral methotrexate in rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for the use of parenteral methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatic diseases, mainly rheumatoid arthritis, based on best evidence and experience.

METHODS

A group of 21 experts on parenteral MTX use was selected. The coordinator formulated 13 questions about parenteral MTX (indications, efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness). A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Using this information, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as were the search strategies (involving Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library). Three different reviewers selected the articles. Evidence tables were created. Abstracts from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinator proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were established using the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the level of agreement with the Delphi technique (2 rounds). Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted yes (yes/no).

RESULTS

Most of the evidence involved rheumatoid arthritis. A total of 13 preliminary recommendations on the use of parenteral MTX were proposed; 11 of them were accepted. Two of the 13 were not voted and are commented on in the main text.

CONCLUSIONS

The manuscript aims to solve frequent questions and help in decision-making strategies when treating patients with parenteral MTX.

Patient's experience with subcutaneous and oral methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Despite the prominent position of methotrexate (MTX) in Rheumatoid Arthiris (RA) therapeutics, its real-world effectiveness may be influenced by a relative lack of tolerability or other side effects that physicians may not be aware of but that are bothersome to patients.

The aim of this study is to identify suboptimal patient experience with MTX and to raise awareness for clinicians to identify opportunities to mitigate bothersome symptoms and side effects and optimize response to MTX.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, online survey among RA patients who were members of Creakyjoints, a large arthritis patient community. Eligible participants must have recently initiated a new biologic, subcutaneous (SQ) MTX, or oral MTX in the last 12 months and were uniquely assigned to one of these 3 groups. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient-reported side effects and tolerability related to MTX use in the 3 medication groups (SQ MTX, oral MTX, and biologic).

Results

A total of 382 (85 %) of 448 eligible patients completed the survey and were grouped as: biologic (n = 218), SQ MTX (n = 49), and oral MTX (n = 115). Demographics were mean standard deviation (SD) age 48 (10) years, 92 % white, 91 % women. Symptoms significantly more prevalent in the SQ and oral MTX groups included diarrhea, fatigue, malaise, and hair loss. Injection related pain was lower with SQ MTX compared to SQ biologics. Out of a total of 8 potential symptoms and side effects examined, higher dose MTX (> = 20 mg/week) was associated with a 2.26 (1.25–4.09) greater likelihood of more side effects referent to < =10 mg/week.

Conclusion

Results from this real-world RA patient cohort suggest that MTX is accompanied by many patient-reported side effects and tolerability problems that may be under-recognized by physicians. These may impact both treatment satisfaction and medication adherence.

Inadequate response or intolerability to oral methotrexate: Is it optimal to switch to subcutaneous methotrexate prior to considering therapy with biologics?

Methotrexate (MTX) is considered an anchor drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. It is also the first-line therapy in a multitude of rheumatologic conditions. Low-dose oral MTX is the preliminary modality of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis due to its affordability, favorable outcomes, and limited risks. However, patients refractory to low-dose MTX therapy may require larger doses of oral MTX. Several studies in the past have demonstrated variability in bioavailability of oral MTX at high doses. This warrants a subsequent switch to parenteral MTX. Widely used among the parenteral preparations of MTX is subcutaneous (SC) MTX. SC MTX provides dependable efficacy, predictable bioavailability, sustained clinical outcomes, and minimal GI adverse effects. It is useful either singularly or in combination therapy regimens. Although SC MTX and intramuscular MTX have similar pharmacokinetics, SC MTX may be preferred by most patients. Development of prefilled syringes and auto-injectors have enabled self-administration of the medication providing the patients with a sense of independence and improved general well-being. Hence, SC MTX can prove to be more efficacious in patients refractory to oral MTX therapy or in patients experiencing severe gastrointestinal adverse effects.

Subcutaneous methotrexate for symptomatic control of severe recalcitrant psoriasis: safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability

Background

Although oral methotrexate is an effective first-line traditional systemic therapy for psoriasis, the use of the subcutaneous form of methotrexate for the treatment of psoriasis has not been fully established.

Objective

This study is a literature review of the research related to the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of subcutaneous methotrexate for its application in the treatment of severe recalcitrant psoriasis.

Methods

Systematic literature searches were conducted of the PubMed, Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases.

Results

Only three relevant sources of literature were found studying subcutaneous methotrexate specifically in the context of psoriasis. Of these, only one clinical trial was found to directly study the use of subcutaneous methotrexate in psoriasis patients; however, results of this study have not been published. The other two literature sources involved a cost-effectiveness analysis and a literature review for subcutaneous methotrexate. Otrexup™ and Rasuvo™ are two particular single-use auto-injector modalities of subcutaneous methotrexate that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The equivalents of Rasuvo available in countries outside of the USA are advertised as Metoject^® or Metex^®. Much more research has been conducted on the use of subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Conclusion

There is a lack of original evidence-based studies evaluating the use of subcutaneous methotrexate specifically for the treatment of psoriasis. Based on the more extensively researched data on the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients, its application for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis is promising. More evidence-based studies on psoriasis subjects are needed to explore the practical application of subcutaneous methotrexate as a treatment option for severe recalcitrant psoriasis.

Use of oral and subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To examine the patterns of methotrexate (MTX) use among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

Using data from RA patients enrolled in a US commercial health plan and the US Medicare program, we identified RA patients initiating oral MTX. Persistence with MTX (oral or subcutaneous [SC]) was defined as no gap for ≥90 days.

RESULTS

New oral MTX users in Medicare (n = 20,431) were 76.9% women, had a mean ± SD age of 69.7 ± 11.7 years, and contributed a median followup of 2.6 years (interquartile range 1.7-3.5 years). Only 38% received dosages ≥20 mg/week at any time. Approximately 50% of patients discontinued MTX at 1 year, although more than one-third of patients subsequently restarted. New commercially insured oral MTX users (n = 4,048) were similar to Medicare patients, except for age. Among Medicare patients, 19% starting oral MTX subsequently initiated a biologic agent, mostly anti-tumor necrosis factor (85%). Of these, only 50% received MTX at a dosage of ≥20 mg/week, and only 21% of individuals switched to SC MTX (4%) or received hydroxychloroquine (8%), sulfasalazine (5%), or leflunomide (8%) prior to biologic agents. In commercially insured patients, 35% initiated a biologic agent, mostly anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies (90%). Of these, 43% never received MTX ≥20 mg/week.

CONCLUSION

Titration to a higher-dose oral MTX and use of SC MTX among RA patients were infrequent and may have been underutilized. Further work to optimize MTX dosing before patients are switched to a biologic agent may be warranted.

Nearly pain-free self-administration of subcutaneous methotrexate with an autoinjector: results of a phase 2 clinical trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have functional limitations

BACKGROUND

A methotrexate autoinjector (MTXAI) was developed for self-administration of subcutaneous (SC) methotrexate by patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The MTXAI circumvents the need for vials, needles, and syringes and may therefore improve dosing accuracy, handling risks, and patient adherence.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate actual human use of the MTXAI in patients with RA and determine its reliability, robustness, safety, local tolerance, and ease of use.

METHODS

In this phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-dose, single-arm, in-clinic US study, adults (N = 101) treated with methotrexate for 3 months or longer were trained to use the MTXAI and assigned to 10, 15, 20, or 25 mg methotrexate based on previous treatment and disease status. Patients completed training confirmation and ease-of-use questionnaires. Pain was evaluated immediately after self-administration and at follow-up with a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst possible pain).

RESULTS

At screening, 90.1% of patients had moderate to severe functional limitations (class II-IV). All patients successfully completed the study. All devices functioned correctly and as intended. The device was rated easy to use by 98%, and instructions clear and easy to follow by 100% of patients. On the visual analog scale, mean and median pain scores were 3.6/100 and 1.0/100 mm, respectively, immediately after self-administration, and were lower at follow-up. Most patients (92.3%) had no administration-site erythema; 7.7% had minimal erythema.

CONCLUSIONS

The SC MTXAI was well tolerated and considered easy to use by patients with RA. Improving SC methotrexate delivery may increase patient tolerance of self-administration, possibly improving adherence.

Perceptions of methotrexate use in rheumatoid arthritis by rheumatologists and their patients: an Australian survey study

AIM

To improve treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rheumatologists have embraced patient-reported outcomes; however, limited data are available on patient perceptions of treatment. Our objective was to assess the use and perceptions of methotrexate (MTX) by patients with RA (primary objective) and their rheumatologists, patient-reported adverse events (AEs) related to MTX, and patient-reported use of alcohol, folic acid and biologic agents.

METHOD

Each rheumatologist completed a rheumatologist questionnaire and then asked patients with RA to complete a patient questionnaire.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 46/50 rheumatologists and 1313/1313 patients. Patients (72% female, 38% > 10 years RA) took oral MTX regularly (72% never miss a dose) and at therapeutic doses. Most patients (79%) were currently taking MTX, but 36% of patients were on low doses (≤ 10 mg/week) and 8% intentionally and regularly did not take MTX. Most patients had a positive perception of MTX; 82% of patients considered MTX to be important; 60% preferred to continue taking MTX. Although AEs (generally mild and gastrointestinal) occurred regularly (38%) and in some patients continuously (13%), 41% of patients did not experience an AE. Patients abstained from alcohol (46%) and took folic acid (91%, but with variable dosage regimens and doses). There were 29% of patients taking biologic agent therapy; only 70% of these patients were also taking MTX.

CONCLUSION

MTX was well used, well tolerated and well perceived. However, to ensure that MTX therapy is as effective as possible, rheumatologists should discuss MTX use with their patients and consider alternative strategies for some patients.

Rheumatoid arthritis: treating to target with disease-modifying drugs

Treating to target is an established concept in a number of long-term conditions, which aims to improve outcomes and prevent disease progression. Treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are to control the signs and symptoms of significant inflammatory disease activity, with the ultimate goal of remission from disease. Assessment of patients' disease activity includes clinical examination of the number of swollen and tender joints, combined with measurement of inflammatory markers and visual analogue scales of patients' overall wellbeing and symptoms. Early initiation and rapid dose escalation of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has been shown to be crucial to optimizing disease control, protecting joints from destruction and preserving health-related quality of life. Corticosteroids can be prescribed for oral use but are often given by intra-muscular or joint injection in times of flare to minimize the risks of side effects. The rational use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesia remains important to symptom management throughout the patient journey. In part two of this three-part series, the concept of treating to target in rheumatoid arthritis is outlined, including the role of the nurse in optimizing outcomes and an overview of treatment options using conventional DMARDs. Part three will cover the use of biologic agents, which have increased treatment options for RA, but their use is reserved for patients with severe disease activity who have failed to respond to adequate trials of DMARDs.