Methotrexate dosage as a source of bias in biological trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Experts document on methotrexate use in combined therapy with biological or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop recommendations for the management of methotrexate (MTX) when considering the combination with biological (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Eleven experts on RA were selected. Two coordinators formulated 13 questions about the combination therapy of MTX with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs. A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established as well as the search strategies (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2019). Two reviewers selected the articles and collected data. Simultaneously, EULAR and ACR meeting abstracts were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinators proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation was established using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine and the level of agreement with a Delphi. Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted 'yes' (yes/no).

RESULTS

The systematic review retrieved 513 citations of which 61 were finally included. A total of 10 recommendations were generated, voted and accepted. The level of agreement was very high in all of them and it was achieved in the first Delphi round. Final recommendations cover aspects such as the optimal MTX dosage, tapering strategy or patients' risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

This document is intended to help clinicians solve usual clinical questions and facilitate decision making when treating RA patients with MTX in combination with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

Chinese traditional medicine (GuiZhi-ShaoYao-ZhiMu decoction) as an add-on medication to methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

GuiZhi-ShaoYao-ZhiMu decoction (GSZD), a traditional Chinese herbal medication, has been frequently used as an add-on medication to methotrexate (MTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment in China. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding GSZD to MTX for RA treatment.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (all databases) for English-language studies and WanFang, VIP, and CNKI for Chinese-language studies up to 28 July 2020. Data from selected studies, mainly the response rates and rate of adverse events (AEs), were extracted independently by two authors, and a random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel method) was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials and 1224 patients were included (623 patients in the GSZD + MTX group and 601 patients in the MTX group). For efficacy, the meta-analysis found that combining GSZD with MTX increased the effective rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.30, based on 1069 patients], defined as >30% efficacy, American College of Rheumatology 20, or a decrease of disease activity score 28 >0.6. Adding GSZD reduced the swollen and tender joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, the levels of C-reactive protein and rheumatoid factor, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The adjuvant therapeutic effect of GSZD was independent of the dose of MTX or the combined utilization of other drugs in both groups. For safety, adding GSZD was associated with a lower rate of total AEs (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26-0.83, based on 615 patients) and gastrointestinal tract AEs (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.24-0.88, based on 537 patients).

Conclusion

Combining GSZD with MTX may be a more efficacious and safer strategy for treating RA compared with MTX alone. Further large studies are warranted to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of adding GSZD to MTX for RA treatment.

Conventional disease-modifying agents in rheumatoid arthritis - a review of their current use and role in treatment algorithms

Despite the development of targeted therapies, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) remain the cornerstone of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A literature search was conducted on treatment recommendations and relevant papers regarding new insights on therapeutics in rheumatoid arthritis. Methotrexate is considered the “anchor drug” due to its high efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with other conventional and targeted agents. Leflunomide and sulfasalazine are sound alternatives, whereas (hydroxy)chloroquine is primarily used in combination with other csDMARDs.

Their use is encouraged in all treatment phases – in combination with targeted agents, and with other csDMARDs. Combining different csDMARDs is especially attractive in lower income settings given the evidence proving (almost) equal efficacy and safety of the csDMARD combination approach compared to the combination of targeted agents with a csDMARD.

The aim of this review is to provide a clinically oriented insight into the pharmacology of each csDMARD and their place in treatment algorithms.

Experts document on methotrexate use in combined therapy with biological or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop recommendations for the management of methotrexate (MTX) when considering the combination with biological (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Eleven experts on RA were selected. Two coordinators formulated 13 questions about the combination therapy of MTX with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs. A systematic review was conducted to answer the questions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established as well as the search strategies (Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2019). Two reviewers selected the articles and collected data. Simultaneously, EULAR and ACR meeting abstracts were evaluated. Based on this evidence, the coordinators proposed preliminary recommendations that the experts discussed and voted in a nominal group meeting. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation was established using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine and the level of agreement with a Delphi. Agreement was established if at least 80% of the experts voted 'yes' (yes/no).

RESULTS

The systematic review retrieved 513 citations of which 61 were finally included. A total of 10 recommendations were generated, voted and accepted. The level of agreement was very high in all of them and it was achieved in the first Delphi round. Final recommendations cover aspects such as the optimal MTX dosage, tapering strategy or patients' risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

This document is intended to help clinicians solve usual clinical questions and facilitate decision making when treating RA patients with MTX in combination with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

[Assessment of the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of first Russian generic aceclofenac in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis]

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of the drug in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We observed 60 patients (39 women and 21 men) met G. Hazlewood et al., UPIA criteria, 2011. Patients were divided into 3 groups: with monoarthritis, oligoarthritis and polyarthritis. They took aceclofenac 100 mg twice day for 3 weeks.

RESULTS

We noted significant decreasing in pain level according to visual analogue scale: in patients with monoarthritis by 69.3 mm (p0.001); in oligoarthritis group by 47.5 mm (p0.001), in patients with polyarthritis by 30 mm (p0.001). The life quality by the EQ-5D-5L index was improved too in all groups from 0.616 to 0.829 (p0.001). The satisfaction with the therapy was: in monoarthritis patients (80% of patients and 93% of doctors noted good results), in oligoarthritis group (53% and 39% accordingly) and polyarthritis (74% and 64% respectively). We suppose the difference was due to the fact that mono- and oligoarthritis patients suffered from initial forms of seronegative spondylarthropathy, in which the effectiveness of NSAIDs is traditionally higher; polyarthritis patients probably had debut of rheumatoid arthritis. Adverse events of therapy were mild. We noted gastrointestinal tract symptoms (dyspepsia) and increased ALT in 10 patients and increased blood pressure in 1 patient. The symptoms did not require discontinuation of therapy. Сonclusion. Post-registration observational study of first Russian generic aceclofenac (Alental, Vertex, Russia) was conducted. In UPIA patients aceclofenac therapy was most effective in mono- and oligoarthritis patients. The first Russian generic aceclofenac (Alental, Vertex, Russia) has good efficacy, tolerability and safety and can be recommended for arthritis treatment.

Comparison of oral versus parenteral methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Studies suggest that parenteral MTX may be more efficacious than the oral form at equivalent doses for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of oral versus parenteral MTX in RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were systematically searched from inception to June 8th 2017 and reviewed following PRISMA 2009 guidelines, by two independent reviewers. To be included, trials had to study adults with RA randomized to the same dose of either oral or parenteral MTX. The primary endpoint was ACR20 at 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis results were used when possible. Data from direct comparisons between oral and parenteral methotrexate quantitatively analyzed using maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis. Relative treatment effects were generated as an odds ratio [OR] (OR>1 indicated a benefit for parenteral therapy).

RESULTS

The search yielded 357 papers or abstracts. After review of titles or abstracts and full text papers, we found 4 that met inclusion criteria with 703 patients randomized. Dose of MTX started at 15mg/week and increased up to 25mg/week. The summary OR for achieving ACR20 using parenteral vs. oral MTX was 3.02 (95% CI 1.41, 6.46), with no significant difference in the risk for all adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral MTX therapy had significantly higher odds than oral MTX of achieving reduction in disease activity. We propose that parenteral MTX is more effective than weekly oral MTX; its widespread use may lead to better control of disease and a decrease in demand for biologic agents.

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.

Effects of antirheumatic drug underutilization on rheumatoid arthritis disease activity

BACKGROUND

Following the recommended guidelines is crucial for achieving patient remission in rheumatoid arthritis. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of proper drug utilization of antirheumatic drugs on disease activity and drug safety in Jordan.

METHODS

In a retrospective cross-sectional study, patient's demographics, clinical variables, drug regimens and side effects were recorded and the 28-joint disease activity scores were calculated. Patients were stratified into high, moderate, low disease activity or remission group.

RESULTS

Around 80% of patients were using methotrexate which was under-dosed in 82% of them. Only 25% were using biologic drugs. Surprisingly, only 10% of patients had low disease activity and only 4% were in a remission state. Anaemia (32.3%) and mild renal impairment (27.6%) were the most common side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The low frequency of well-controlled disease activity is interpreted by high occurrence of methotrexate underdosing and biologic agent underprescription. Implementing the role of a clinical pharmacist could have a real impact on tight control of such disease issues in Jordan.

[Prospects for rheumatoid arthritis pharmacotherapy: New opportunities and recommendations]

The paper considers a current strategy, international and Russian recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one of the most common and severe human immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. It emphasizes the need for early diagnosis and therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, primarily methotrexate (MT), starting at the onset of the disease, and careful monitoring of therapeutic effectiveness, allowing RA remission to be achieved with a treatment-to-target strategy. The author discusses recent RA pharmacotherapy advances that are related to the rational use of MT, biological agents, and the new targeted JAK inhibitor tofacitinib.

Induction maintenance with tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor combination therapy with discontinuation versus methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy in randomised controlled trials

Objective

To determine whether an induction-maintenance strategy of combined therapy (methotrexate (MTX)+tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (TNFi)) followed by withdrawal of TNFi could yield better long-term results than a strategy with MTX monotherapy, since it is unclear if the benefits from an induction phase with combined therapy are sustained if TNFi is withdrawn.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of trials using the initial combination of MTX+TNFi in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic literature search was performed for induction-maintenance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where initial combination therapy was compared with MTX monotherapy in patients with clinically active early RA. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA; Disease Activity Score (DAS)28<3.2) and/or remission (DAS28<2.6) at 12–76 weeks of follow-up. A random-effects model was used to pool the risk ratio (RR) for LDA and remission and heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses.

Results

We identified 6 published RCTs, 4 of them where MTX+adalimumab was given as initial therapy and where adalimumab was withdrawn in a subset of patients after LDA/remission had been achieved. 2 additional trials used MTX+infliximab as combination therapy. The pooled RRs for achieving LDA and clinical remission at follow-up after withdrawal of TNFi were 1.41 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.89) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.89), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between trials due to different treatment strategies, which was a limitation to this study.

Conclusions

Initial therapy with MTX+TNFi is associated with a higher chance of retaining LDA and/or remission even after discontinuation of TNFi.