Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study

Efficacy and safety of iguratimod in the treatment of rheumatic and autoimmune diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review of 84 randomized controlled trials

Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of iguratimod (IGU) in the treatment of rheumatic and autoimmune diseases. Methods: Databases such as Pubmed, Embase, Sinomed were searched (as of July 2022) to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IGU in the treatment of rheumatic and autoimmune diseases. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the included literature, and performed meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: A total of 84 RCTs and 4 types of rheumatic and autoimmune diseases [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), primary Sjögren's syndrome (PSS) and Autoimmune disease with interstitial pneumonia]. Forty-three RCTs reported RA and showed that IGU + MTX therapy can improve ACR20 (RR 1.45 [1.14, 1.84], p = 0.003), ACR50 (RR 1.80 [1.43, 2.26], p < 0.0000), ACR70 (RR 1.84 [1.27, 2.67], p = 0.001), DAS28 (WMD -1.11 [-1.69, -0.52], p = 0.0002), reduce ESR (WMD -11.05 [-14.58, -7.51], p < 0.00001), CRP (SMD -1.52 [-2.02, -1.02], p < 0.00001), RF (SMD -1.65 [-2.48, -0.82], p < 0.0001), and have a lower incidence of adverse events (RR 0.84 [0.78, 0.91], p < 0.00001) than the control group. Nine RCTs reported AS and showed that IGU can decrease the BASDAI score (SMD -1.62 [-2.20, -1.05], p < 0.00001), BASFI score (WMD -1.07 [-1.39, -0.75], p < 0.00001), VAS (WMD -2.01 [-2.83, -1.19], p < 0.00001), inflammation levels (decreasing ESR, CRP and TNF-α). Thirty-two RCTs reported PSS and showed that IGU can reduce the ESSPRI score (IGU + other therapy group: WMD -1.71 [-2.44, -0.98], p < 0.00001; IGU only group: WMD -2.10 [-2.40, -1.81], p < 0.00001) and ESSDAI score (IGU + other therapy group: WMD -1.62 [-2.30, -0.94], p < 0.00001; IGU only group: WMD -1.51 [-1.65, -1.37], p < 0.00001), inhibit the inflammation factors (reduce ESR, CRP and RF) and increase Schirmer's test score (IGU + other therapy group: WMD 2.18 [1.76, 2.59], p < 0.00001; IGU only group: WMD 1.55 [0.35, 2.75], p = 0.01); The incidence of adverse events in IGU group was also lower than that in control group (IGU only group: RR 0.66 [0.48, 0.98], p = 0.01). Three RCTs reported Autoimmune disease with interstitial pneumonia and showed that IGU may improve lung function. Conclusion: Based on current evidence, IGU may be a safe and effective therapy for RA, AS, PSS and autoimmune diseases with interstitial pneumonia. Systematic Review Registration: (CRD42021289489).

Filgotinib Modulates Inflammation-Associated Peripheral Blood Protein Biomarkers in Adults with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prior Inadequate Response to Methotrexate

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to evaluate protein biomarker changes related to the administration of filgotinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 preferential inhibitor, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to methotrexate.

METHODS

Plasma and serum samples were collected from patients enrolled in FINCH 1 (NCT02889796), a Phase 3 trial. Patients with stable backgrounds of methotrexate were randomly assigned once-daily oral filgotinib 200 or 100 mg, subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (W), or placebo. Up to 35 biomarkers were analyzed at baseline, W4, and W12 with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and chemiluminescence and electrochemiluminescence assays.

RESULTS

At baseline, four distinct biomarker clusters were identified. The strongest intragroup correlations were in bone-cartilage resorption/inflammation and JAK/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling activity. At baseline, significant positive correlations were identified for cytokines with patient-reported pain and with patient measures of fatigue. Filgotinib reduced levels of cytokines associated with inflammation and cell migration as early as W4 and through W12. Compared to adalimumab, filgotinib induced significant reductions in bone-related turnover biomarkers, N-telopeptide of type 1 collagen and C-telopeptide 1, as well as biomarkers associated with baseline disease activity. No baseline predictors of therapeutic response to filgotinib were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Filgotinib reduced peripheral protein biomarkers associated with JAK/STAT signaling, inflammatory signaling, immune cell migration, and bone resorption as soon as W4 in FINCH 1. Effects were dose-dependent and consistent with the clinical efficacy of filgotinib observed in FINCH 1. The changes in peripheral biomarkers associated with filgotinib treatment in methotrexate-experienced patients are consistent with changes observed in both methotrexate-naïve and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-experienced RA populations. These data demonstrate dose-dependent effects of preferential JAK1 inhibition by filgotinib on peripheral blood protein biomarkers in methotrexate-experienced patients with RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02889796.

Iguratimod Versus Salazosulfapyridine in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: Adjusted with Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVES

Methotrexate (MTX) is recommended as a first-line conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). No studies have established which csDMARDs are useful as add-on drugs for RA patients with an inadequate response (IR) to MTX. This retrospective study sought to identify an add-on csDMARD treatment strategy for RA patients with MTX-IR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We collected the cases of RA patients treated with salazosulfapyridine (SASP) or iguratimod (IGU) as the additional csDMARD for MTX-IR during a 24-month follow-up at four institutions in Japan. We performed propensity score matching to evaluate the retention rate, clinical efficacy, and safety profile (n=54, each group).

RESULTS

The retention rates at 24 months of combination therapy in the patients with any-reason discontinuations were 38.5% (MTX+SASP group) and 67.8% (MTX+IGU group). At 3 and 6 months of follow-up, the MTX+IGU group's DAS28-CRP was significantly decreased versus the MTX+SASP group, and at 3 months the MTX+IGU group's good-responder percentage (22.9%) was significantly higher versus the MTX+SASP group's (10.7%). Conversely, compared to the MTX+SASP group, the MTX+IGU group showed a greater reduction in the eGFR from baseline after 3 months during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

IGU is a useful add-on csDMARD for RA patients with MTX-IR; its high retention rate and good clinical response make it a useful combination therapy for controlling RA disease activity. However, the renal function of these patients should be monitored during follow-up.

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis about the Efficacy and Safety of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of various conventional synthetic DMARDs, including Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by network meta-analysis.

Methods

We retrieved the related literature from online databases and supplemented it by using a manual retrieval method. Data was extracted from the literature and analyzed with STATA software.

Results

A total of 21 trials (5,039 participants) were identified. Assessment of ACR20 response found that TwHF combined with methotrexate (MTX) had the greatest probability for being the best treatment option among the treatments involved, while TwHF used singly was second only to TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR50 response found that TwHF combined with MTX ranked second in all treatment options after cyclosporine A (CsA) combined with leflunomide (LEF) and TwHF alone, followed by TwHF combined with MTX. Assessment of ACR70 response found that CsA combined with LEF ranked first, TwHF combined with LEF ranked second, TwHF combined with MTX ranked third, and TwHF used singly ranked fourth. In the safety analysis, TwHF had the least probability of adverse event occurrence, followed by TwHF combined with MTX, which ranked first and second, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared with the current csDMARDs for treating RA, the efficacy of TwHF was clear, and TwHF combined with MTX performed well under various endpoints. In the future, large, rigorous, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of TwHF therapy on RA.

Toward Overcoming Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and bone erosion. The exact mechanism of RA is still unknown, but various immune cytokines, signaling pathways and effector cells are involved. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are commonly used in RA treatment and classified into different categories. Nevertheless, RA treatment is based on a "trial-and-error" approach, and a substantial proportion of patients show failed therapy for each DMARD. Over the past decades, great efforts have been made to overcome treatment failure, including identification of biomarkers, exploration of the reasons for loss of efficacy, development of sequential or combinational DMARDs strategies and approval of new DMARDs. Here, we summarize these efforts, which would provide valuable insights for accurate RA clinical medication. While gratifying, researchers realize that these efforts are still far from enough to recommend specific DMARDs for individual patients. Precision medicine is an emerging medical model that proposes a highly individualized and tailored approach for disease management. In this review, we also discuss the potential of precision medicine for overcoming RA treatment failure, with the introduction of various cutting-edge technologies and big data.

Prevalence and predictors of adverse events with methotrexate mono- and combination-therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to summarize rates of adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA or inflammatory arthritis starting MTX as monotherapy or in combination with other csDMARDs, and to identify reported predictors of AEs.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for studies reporting AEs in MTX-naïve patients with RA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies were included. Prevalence rates of AEs were pooled using random effects meta-analysis, stratified by study design.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles (34 RCTs and 12 observational studies) were identified. The pooled prevalence of total AEs was 80.1% in RCTs (95% CI: 73.5, 85.9), compared with 23.1% in observational studies (95% CI: 12.3, 36.0). The pooled prevalence of serious AEs was 9.5% in RCTs (95% CI: 7.4, 11.7), and 2.1% in observational studies (95% CI: 1.0, 3.4). MTX discontinuation due to AEs was higher in observational studies (15.5%, 95% CI: 9.6, 22.3) compared with RCTs (6.7%, 95% CI: 4.7, 8.9). Gastrointestinal events were the most commonly reported AEs (pooled prevalence: 32.7%, 95% CI: 18.5, 48.7). Five studies examined predictors of AEs. RF status, BMI and HAQ score were associated with MTX discontinuation due to AEs; ACPA negativity, smoking and elevated creatinine were associated with increased risk of elevated liver enzymes.

CONCLUSION

The review provides an up-to-date overview of the prevalence of AEs associated with MTX in patients with RA. The findings should be communicated to patients to help them make informed choices prior to commencing MTX.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Dexamethasone and Fumaric Acid Ester Conjugate Synergistically Inhibits Inflammation and NF-κB in Macrophages

Macrophage-mediated inflammation drives autoimmune and chronic inflammatory diseases. Treatment with anti-inflammatory agents can be an effective strategy to reduce this inflammation; however, high concentrations of these agents can have immune-dampening and other serious side effects. Synergistic combination of anti-inflammatory agents can mitigate dosing by requiring less drug. Multiple anti-inflammatory agents were evaluated in combination for synergistic inhibition of macrophage inflammation. The most potent synergy was observed between dexamethasone (DXM) and fumaric acid esters (e.g., monomethyl fumarate (MMF)). Furthermore, this combination was found to synergistically inhibit inflammatory nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) transcription factor activity. The optimal ratio for synergy was determined to be 1:1, and DXM and MMF were conjugated by esterification at this molar ratio. The DXM-MMF conjugate displayed improved inhibition of inflammation over the unconjugated combination in both murine and human macrophages. In the treatment of human donor monocyte-derived macrophages, the combination of DXM and MMF significantly inhibited inflammatory gene expression downstream of NF-κB and overall performed better than either agent alone. Further, the DXM-MMF conjugate significantly inhibited expression of NOD-, LRR-, and pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome-associated genes. The potent anti-inflammatory activity of the DXM-MMF conjugate in human macrophages indicates that it may have benefits in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

Cardiovascular effects of approved drugs for rheumatoid arthritis

The risk of cardiovascular disease is increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with the general population owing to the influence of traditional and non-traditional risk factors. Inflammation has a pivotal contribution and can accelerate the atherosclerotic process. Although dampening inflammation with DMARDs should theoretically abrogate this process, evidence suggests that these drugs can also promote atherosclerosis directly and indirectly, hence adding to an increased cardiovascular burden. However, the extent and direction of the effects largely differ across drugs. Understanding how these drugs influence endothelial damage and vascular repair mechanisms is key to understanding these outcomes. NSAIDs and glucocorticoids can increase the cardiovascular risk. Conversely, conventional, biologic and targeted DMARDs control inflammation and reduce this risk, although some of these drugs can also aggravate traditional factors or thrombotic events. Given these data, the fundamental objective for clinicians should be disease control, in an individualized approach that considers the most appropriate drug for each patient, taking into account joint and cardiovascular outcomes. This Review provides a comprehensive analysis of the effects of DMARDs and other approved drugs on cardiovascular involvement in rheumatoid arthritis, from a clinical and mechanistic perspective, with a roadmap to inform the research agenda.

Potential contributors to low dose methotrexate toxicity in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis and pernicious anemia: case report

Background

Low dose methotrexate toxicity rarely occurs, but may present with severe complications, such as pancytopenia, hepatotoxicity, mucositis, and pneumonitis. Known risk factors for methotrexate toxicity include dosing errors, metabolic syndrome, hypoalbuminemia, renal dysfunction, lack of folate supplementation, and the concomitant use of drugs that interfere with methotrexate metabolism. Vitamin B12 deficiency leads to megaloblastic anemia and may cause pancytopenia, but its role in methotrexate toxicity has not been described.

Case presentation

We present a case of a patient with rheumatoid arthritis who was admitted with febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, and severe mucositis, likely secondary to low dose methotrexate toxicity. She had multiple factors that potentially contributed to the development of toxicity, including concurrent sulfasalazine use for rheumatoid arthritis. An evaluation of the patient’s macrocytic anemia revealed pernicious anemia. The patient’s illness resolved with cessation of methotrexate and sulfasalazine, leucovorin treatment and vitamin B12 repletion.

Conclusions

This case illustrates the multiple factors that may potentially contribute to low dose methotrexate toxicity and highlights the importance of testing for vitamin B12 deficiency in rheumatoid arthritis patients with macrocytic anemia. Addressing all the modifiable factors that potentially contribute to low dose methotrexate toxicity may improve outcomes.

Leflunomide monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective study

Leflunomide (LEF) is a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, there are few reports on the comparison of efficacy between LEF alone and combined with other csDMARDs. Here, the efficacy and safety of LEF monotherapy (88) and combination (361) therapy groups were evaluated. After 3 months, there were no significant differences in 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) between the monotherapy and combination groups (all P > 0.05). According to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, it was found that the DAS28 response rates were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). Besides, the two groups presented similar safety profiles. Subgroup analysis found that there was no difference in efficacy among the three combined therapies (LEF + methotrexate (MTX), LEF + hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and LEF + MTX + HCQ) and LEF monotherapy. Furthermore, when the dose of LEF was less than 40 mg/day, no significant difference in efficacy was observed between low and high doses. Overall, these results indicated that low dose LEF monotherapy was not inferior to the combination therapy.

Comparison of Lutetium-177 tin colloid and Rhenium-188 tin colloid radiosynovectomy in chronic knee arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the role of Lutetium-177(Lu-177) tin colloid for radiosynovectomy and compare it with Rhenium-188 (Re-188) tin colloid radiosynovectomy for alleviation of pain in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis of knee.

METHODS

Patients of chronic inflammatory arthritis of the knee underwent pretherapeutic evaluation in a form of knee ultrasonogram, bone scan and clinical evaluation. Fifty-seven recruited patients were allocated at random to receive either intraarticular injections of Lu-177 tin colloid or Re-188 tin colloid. Eventually, 27 patients received Re-188 tin colloid and 30 patients received Lu-177 tin colloid. The joint was then immobilized for 2 days. Response evaluation was done using knee ultrasound, bone scan and clinical findings.

RESULT

Of 30, 20 patients responded to radiosynovectomy in the Lu-177 tin colloid group compared to 21/27 patients in the Re-188 tin colloid group.

CONCLUSION

Lu-177 tin colloid is an effective alternative to Re-188 tin colloid for radiosynovectomy in patients with chronic inflammatory knee arthritis.

Efficacy and safety of add-on tacrolimus versus leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to methotrexate

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus (TAC) versus leflunomide (LEF) when combined with methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHOD

This was a 24-week multi-center, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority study targeting RA patients with moderate to severe Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28 > 3.2) who showed inadequate response to MTX. Patients were randomized into TAC or LEF (add-on to MTX) groups. Initial daily doses of TAC and LEF were 1.5 and 10 mg, respectively, for 4 weeks and then doubled until the end of the study. The primary endpoint was DAS28 comparison at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients were screened in 10 centers and 75 patients were randomized into two groups. Baseline demographics were comparable between TAC + MTX and LEF + MTX groups. The TAC + MTX group was non-inferior to the LEF + MTX group in terms of DAS28 at 24 weeks (mean difference of DAS28: -0.1812, 95% confidence interval: -0.8073, 0.4450). There was a greater number of adverse events in the LEF + MTX group (66 in LEF + MTX and 49 in TAC + MTX). Six patients presented with transaminitis in the LEF + MTX group compared with two patients in the TAC + MTX group.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of TAC combined with MTX was non-inferior to LEF + MTX. It had a reasonable safety profile in RA patients with moderate to severe disease activity (http://cris.nih.go.kr; KCT0000781).

2018 update of the APLAR recommendations for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To update recommendations based on current best evidence concerning the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), focusing particularly on the role of targeted therapies, to inform clinicians on new developments that will impact their current practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of relevant literature from 2014 to 2016 concerning targeted therapies in RA was conducted. The RA Update Working Group evaluated the evidence and proposed updated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, to describe the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Recommendations were finalized through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS

This update provides 16 RA treatment recommendations based on current best evidence and expert clinical opinion. Recommendations 1-3 deal with the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The next three recommendations (4-6) cover the need for screening and management of infections and comorbid conditions prior to starting targeted therapy, while the following seven recommendations focus on use of these agents. We address choice of targeted therapy, switch, tapering and discontinuation. The last three recommendations elaborate on targeted therapy for RA in special situations such as pregnancy, cancer, and major surgery.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatoid arthritis remains a significant health problem in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with RA can benefit from the availability of effective targeted therapies, and these updated recommendations provide clinicians with guidance on their use.

Intensive therapy and remissions in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of intensive treatment strategies in achieving remission in patients with both early and established Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated trials and comparative studies reporting remission in RA patients treated intensively with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Analysis used RevMan 5.3 to report relative risks (RR) in random effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 928 publications: 53 studies were included (48 superiority studies; 6 head-to-head trials). In the superiority studies 3013/11259 patients achieved remission with intensive treatment compared with 1211/8493 of controls. Analysis of the 53 comparisons showed a significant benefit for intensive treatment (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.90, 2.61). Intensive treatment increased remissions in both early RA (23 comparisons; RR 1.56; 1.38, 1.76) and established RA (29 comparisons RR 4.21, 2.92, 6.07). All intensive strategies (combination DMARDs, biologics, JAK inhibitors) increased remissions. In the 6 head-to-head trials 317/787 patients achieved remission with biologics compared with 229/671 of patients receiving combination DMARD therapies and there was no difference between treatment strategies (RR 1.06; 0.93. 1.21). There were differences in the frequency of remissions between early and established RA. In early RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 49% compared with 34% in controls. In established RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 19% compared with 6% in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive treatment with combination DMARDs, biologics or JAK inhibitors increases the frequency of remission compared to control non-intensive strategies. The benefits are seen in both early and established RA.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care.

DATA SOURCES

Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease.

LIMITATIONS

TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients).

CONCLUSION

In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

2017 recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of this document is to provide a comprehensive update of the recommendations of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology on drug treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on a systematic literature review and on the opinion of a panel of rheumatologists. Four general principles and eleven recommendations were approved. General principles: RA treatment should (1) preferably consist of a multidisciplinary approach coordinated by a rheumatologist, (2) include counseling on lifestyle habits, strict control of comorbidities, and updates of the vaccination record, (3) be based on decisions shared by the patient and the physician after clarification about the disease and the available therapeutic options; (4) the goal is sustained clinical remission or, when this is not feasible, low disease activity. Recommendations: (1) the first line of treatment should be a csDMARD, started as soon as the diagnosis of RA is established; (2) methotrexate (MTX) is the first-choice csDMARD; (3) the combination of two or more csDMARDs, including MTX, may be used as the first line of treatment; (4) after failure of first-line therapy with MTX, the therapeutic strategies include combining MTX with another csDMARD (leflunomide), with two csDMARDs (hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine), or switching MTX for another csDMARD (leflunomide or sulfasalazine) alone; (5) after failure of two schemes with csDMARDs, a bDMARD may be preferably used or, alternatively a tsDMARD, preferably combined, in both cases, with a csDMARD; (6) the different bDMARDs in combination with MTX have similar efficacy, and therefore, the therapeutic choice should take into account the peculiarities of each drug in terms of safety and cost; (7) the combination of a bDMARD and MTX is preferred over the use of a bDMARD alone; (8) in case of failure of an initial treatment scheme with a bDMARD, a scheme with another bDMARD can be used; in cases of failure with a TNFi, a second bDMARD of the same class or with another mechanism of action is effective and safe; (9) tofacitinib can be used to treat RA after failure of bDMARD; (10) corticosteroids, preferably at low doses for the shortest possible time, should be considered during periods of disease activity, and the risk-benefit ratio should also be considered; (11) reducing or spacing out bDMARD doses is possible in patients in sustained remission.

Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Novel Approach in Diagnosis and Treatment

The rheumatoid arthritis is chronic disease with progressive course and deteriorations of joints as well as other organs. The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis is characterized with chronic synovitis and inflammation. The main roles in development of rheumatoid arthritis have auto-reactive T cells and inflammatory cytokines, especially tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin 1 and interleukin 6. The management of rheumatoid arthritis has evolved significantly in the past twenty years, especially with introduction new diagnostic criteria by European League for Rheumatoid Arthritis which are very sensitive for early arthritis. The main goal of treating rheumatoid arthritis is to start with therapy in the phase of the disease when destruction of joints can still be prevented. Therapeutic strategies for rheumatoid arthritis involve wide palette of different drugs which can be divided into conventional and biological Disease Modifying Anthirheumatic Drugs. The use of methotrexate in combination with biological drugs provide targeting not only structural changes in rheumatoid arthritis but also and immunological pathways in development of rheumatoid arthritis. These drugs synergistically provide clinical remission and low activity of rheumatoid arthritis in the majority of patients. The uses of biological drugs are limited due their high costs or safety profile. In order to reduce costs and toxicity in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, new treat- to –target concept is established. The new class of drugs which modulate signal pathways and activity of tyrosine kinase are under investigations in post marketing surveys in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as in efficacy as in safety issues.

Drug interaction between methotrexate and salazosulfapyridine in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Methotrexate (MTX) and salazosulfapyridine (SASP) are disease-modifying drugs that are commonly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and combination therapy with MTX and SASP is recommended for RA patients who show an inadequate response to monotherapy with either drug. This study was designed to examine the interaction between the two drugs from the viewpoint of serum MTX concentration in Japanese RA patients, who were receiving combination therapy with relatively low doses of MTX and SASP.

Methods

This is a 24-week open-label intervention study of stable RA patients (n = 10) with low disease activity. In these patients, who had received SASP/MTX combination therapy for at least 12 weeks, SASP was discontinued, and the patients received MTX monotherapy for the next 24 weeks. The primary outcome was change of serum MTX concentration at 12 weeks after discontinuation of SASP. Two disease activity markers, simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and disease activity score-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), were assessed as secondary outcomes at 24 weeks after discontinuation of SASP. We also monitored levels of matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) and inflammatory cytokines. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire after the study.

Results

Serum MTX concentration in RA patients who discontinued SASP increased more than 2-fold within 4 weeks, and the higher level was maintained thereafter. No significant differences were detected in SDAI, DAS28-CRP, MMP-3 or inflammatory cytokines. Most participants reported no change in physical condition after withdrawal of SASP, and most preferred MTX monotherapy for future treatment.

Conclusions

Withdrawal of SASP from patients receiving SASP/MTX caused a rapid, marked increase of serum MTX concentration, without any apparent change in disease parameters or side effects. Our results suggest that SASP can be discontinued without adverse effects in stable RA patients receiving combination therapy, at least among Japanese patients receiving relatively low doses of the two drugs.

Trial registration

UMIN000024507. October 21, 2016 retrospectively registered.

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory joint disease, which can cause cartilage and bone damage as well as disability. Early diagnosis is key to optimal therapeutic success, particularly in patients with well-characterised risk factors for poor outcomes such as high disease activity, presence of autoantibodies, and early joint damage. Treatment algorithms involve measuring disease activity with composite indices, applying a treatment-to-target strategy, and use of conventional, biological, and newz non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. After the treatment target of stringent remission (or at least low disease activity) is maintained, dose reduction should be attempted. Although the prospects for most patients are now favourable, many still do not respond to current therapies. Accordingly, new therapies are urgently required. In this Seminar, we describe current insights into genetics and aetiology, pathophysiology, epidemiology, assessment, therapeutic agents, and treatment strategies together with unmet needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and Efficacy of Methotrexate in Psoriasis: A Meta-Analysis of Published Trials

Background

Methotrexate (MTX) has been used to treat psoriasis for over half a century. Even so, clinical data characterising its efficacy and safety are sparse.

Objective

In order to enhance the available evidence, we conducted two meta-analyses, one for efficacy and one for safety outcomes, respectively, according to PRISMA checklist. (Data sources, study criteria, and study synthesis methods are detailed in Methods).

Results

In terms of efficacy, only eleven studies met criteria for study design and passed a Cochrane risk of bias analysis. Based on this limited dataset, 45.2% [95% confidence interval 34.1–60.0] of patients achieve PASI75 at primary endpoint (12 or 16 weeks, respectively, n = 705 patients across all studies), compared to a calculated PASI75 of 4.4 [3.5–5.6] for placebo, yielding a relative risk of 10.2 [95% C.I. 7.1–14.7]. For safety outcomes, we extended the meta-analysis to include studies employing the same dose range of MTX for other chronic inflammatory conditions, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, in order not to maximise capture of relevant safety data. Based on 2763 patient safety years, adverse events (AEs) were found treatment limiting in 6.9 ± 1.4% (mean ± s.e.) of patients treated for six months, with an adverse effect profile largely in line with that encountered in clinical practice. Finally, in order to facilitate prospective clinical audit and to help generate long-term treatment outcomes under real world conditions, we also developed an easy to use documentation form to be completed by patients without requirement for additional staff time.

Limitations

Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety, respectively, employed non-identical selection criteria.

Conclusions

These meta-analyses summarise currently available evidence on MTX in psoriasis and should be of use to gauge whether local results broadly fall within outcomes.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.

CONCLUSION

This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

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.

Pharmacogenomics of Methotrexate Membrane Transport Pathway: Can Clinical Response to Methotrexate in Rheumatoid Arthritis Be Predicted?

Background: Methotrexate (MTX) is widely used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could be used as predictors of patients’ therapeutic outcome variability. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the influence of SNPs in genes encoding for MTX membrane transport proteins in order to predict clinical response to MTX. Methods: Clinicopathological data from 233 RA patients treated with MTX were collected, clinical response defined, and patients genotyped for 23 SNPs. Genotype and haplotype analyses were performed using multivariate methods and a genetic risk index (GRI) for non-response was created. Results: Increased risk for non-response was associated to SLC22A11 rs11231809 T carriers; ABCC1 rs246240 G carriers; ABCC1 rs3784864 G carriers; CGG haplotype for ABCC1 rs35592, rs2074087 and rs3784864; and CGG haplotype for ABCC1 rs35592, rs246240 and rs3784864. GRI demonstrated that patients with Index 3 were 16-fold more likely to be non-responders than those with Index 1. Conclusions: This study revealed that SLC22A11 and ABCC1 may be important to identify those patients who will not benefit from MTX treatment, highlighting the relevance in translating these results to clinical practice. However, further validation by independent studies is needed to develop the field of personalized medicine to predict clinical response to MTX treatment.

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.

Therapeutic advancements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

The treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has substantially evolved over the past two decades. Research has been conducted and is ongoing on how therapies can best be utilized either as monotherapy or in combination for enhanced efficacy. The introduction of biologic therapies that selectively target specific cytokines has changed the acceptable clinical course of childhood arthritis. In addition to the development and utilization of new therapeutic agents, the pediatric rheumatology community has made vital progress toward defining disease activity, developing validated outcome measures, and establishing collaborative networks to assess both clinical outcomes and the long-term side effects related to therapeutics for juvenile arthritis. In this chapter, we will discuss the therapeutic evolution in JIA over the past two decades. Although the largest strides have been made with biologic agents, and these newer drugs have more rigorous data to support their use, select commonly used non-biologic therapies are included, with the discussion focused on more recent updated literature.

Clinical and Serological Predictors of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis Are Dependent on Treatment Regimen

Objective.

Early intensive treatment is now the cornerstone for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the era of personalized medicine, when treatment is becoming more individualized, it is unclear from the current literature whether all patients with RA benefit equally from such intensive therapies. We investigated the benefit of different treatment regimens on remission rates when stratified to clinical and serological factors.

Methods.

The Combination Anti-rheumatic Drugs in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CARDERA) trial recruited patients with RA of less than 2 years’ duration who had active disease. The trial compared 4 treatment regimens: methotrexate monotherapy, 2 different double therapy regimens (methotrexate and cyclosporine or methotrexate and prednisolone) and 3-drug therapy. Clinical predictors included age, male sex, and tender joint count (TJC) and serological biomarkers included rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA).

Results.

Patients who were male, over 50 years, had ≥ 6 TJC, were RF-IgM–positive, or ACPA-positive were more likely to achieve remission at 24 months using 3-drug therapy compared to monotherapy (OR 2.99, 4.95, 2.71, 2.54, and 3.52, respectively). There were no differences in response to monotherapy and 3-drug therapy if patients were female, under 50 years, had < 6 TJC, or were seronegative.

Conclusion.

Early intensive regimens have become the gold standard in the treatment of early RA. Our study suggests that this intensive approach is only superior to monotherapy in certain subsets of patients. Although these are unlikely to be the only predictors of treatment response, our study brings us a step closer to achieving personalized medicine in 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.

Anti-arthritic and immunosuppressive activities of substituted triterpenoidal candidates

We herein report the anti-arthritic and immunosuppressive activities of some synthesized substituted terpenoidal structure. Forty-four triterpenoid derivatives 1-21 containing a carboxylic, ester, amide and ketone groups attached to a triterpene moiety were conveniently synthesized and screened for their anti-arthritic and immunosuppressive activities. Synthetic triterpenoidal structures linked to a different function groups seem to be a promising approach in the search for novel leads for potent anti-arthritic and immunosuppressive agents. The detailed synthetic pathways of obtained compounds and anti-arthritic and immunosuppressive activities were reported.

Pharmacokinetic consideration of synthetic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment strategy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) focuses on tight disease control and remission. The present understanding of the immune-pathological process of RA, mechanism of synthetic DMARDs and the clinical experience of the drugs have raised certain concerns over their clinical use.

AREAS COVERED

The review summarizes latest concepts in the pathogenesis of RA, and the mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics of commonly used synthetic DMARDs. It also covers the principle of enzyme and receptor kinetics, and limitation of current knowledge on RA disease measures.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a need to rationalize the use of synthetic DMARDs to help improve RA treatment. One recommendation to assist the rationalization of this treatment is by the construction of suitable models of the disease process, thereby augmenting treatment options. Currently, the dosage and duration of this type of treatment is based on its overall effect and clinical outcome. Each DMARD will confer its effect on a specific component of the multilevel, multicellular, pathological process of RA. Furthermore, developing definitive biomarkers could help to better assess the disease at its various stages instead of using conventional RA measures for drug titration and to help in the rationalization of drug regimen. Integrating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties into this model will also help in improving treatment outcomes.

Evolution of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis

Treatment for RA has changed profoundly over the past 25 years, evolving from a strategy of providing symptomatic relief, to implementation of therapeutic regimens that impact disease activity and ultimately have been shown to slow or arrest structural joint damage. Drug therapy for RA has evolved from salicylates, to NSAIDs, CSs, DMARDs, MTX, and finally to biologic response modifiers. MTX has become the initial drug of choice in most patients with RA, and some do well on MTX monotherapy without the addition of other agents. Combination regimens including MTX and other conventional DMARDs may be an effective early approach to treatment of RA. The biologic response modifiers (biologics) became available in the late 1990s, based on our understanding of the molecular mediators of synovial inflammation in RA. The first biologics inhibited TNF-α, a cytokine active in host defences against some infections and malignancies, but which also promotes inflammation and bone erosion. Inhibitors of TNF-α are mostly given with MTX, although some can be given as monotherapy. Studies consistently show that combination MTX + TNF-α inhibitor therapy leads to better outcomes than with either agent alone. Tight control strategies, employing objective measures, also lead to improved outcomes. When patients fail treatment with one or more TNF-α inhibitor + MTX, a number of other possible alternatives may be tried, including treatment with biologics having other mechanisms, such as antibodies to certain ILs, other cytokines and inflammatory mediators. Current therapy for RA is such that progression from symptom onset to significant disability is now no longer inevitable, and RA patients can anticipate comfortable and productive lives on medical therapy.

Old drugs, old problems: where do we stand in prediction of rheumatoid arthritis responsiveness to methotrexate and other synthetic DMARDs?

Methotrexate (MTX) is the central drug in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other immune mediated inflammatory diseases. It is widely used either in monotherapy or in association with other synthetic and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Although comprehensive clinical experience exists for MTX and synthetic DMARDs, to date it has not been possible to preview correctly whether or not a patient will respond to treatment with these drugs. Predicting response to MTX and other DMARDs would allow the selection of patients based on their likelihood of response, thus enabling individualized therapy and avoiding unnecessary adverse effects and elevated costs. However, studies analyzing this issue have struggled to obtain consistent, replicable results and no factor has yet been recognized to individually distinguish responders from nonresponders at treatment start. Variables possibly influencing drug effectiveness may be disease-, patient- or treatment-related, clinical or biological (genetic and nongenetic). In this review we summarize current evidence on predictors of response to MTX and other synthetic DMARDs, discuss possible causes for the heterogeneity observed and address its translation into daily clinical practice.

Cystine/glutamic acid transporter is a novel marker for predicting poor survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Cystine/glutamic acid transporter (xCT) plays a role in tumor progression by regulating the redox status in several types of cancers. To demonstrate the importance of xCT expression for predicting the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we analyzed xCT gene expression in 130 paired HCC and non-cancerous tissues. xCT protein expression was confirmed using 7 HCC cell lines and samples from human subjects. xCT mRNA expression was detected in 34 (26%) tumor tissues. Expression of xCT was higher in HCC tissues compared to the corresponding normal tissues according to quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction findings (P<0.0001). Patients in the group presenting with xCT mRNA expression showed poorer overall and disease-free survival than did those with an absence of xCT mRNA (P=0.0130 and 0.0416, respectively). xCT mRNA expression proved to be an independent factor for poor prognosis in a multivariate analysis of overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.03-2.92). We observed xCT protein expression in both the HCC cell lines and in human tissue samples. In conclusion, the findings of the present study suggest that xCT is useful as a predictive marker for patient prognosis and that it may be a novel therapeutic target for HCC.

Concomitant iguratimod therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of iguratimod (T-614) in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had inadequate response to stable background methotrexate (MTX) alone.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial, a total of 253 patients were randomized at 2:1 ratio to either the iguratimod group or the placebo group. Iguratimod was orally administered at dosages of 25 mg/day for the first 4 weeks (25 mg once daily) and 50 mg/day for the subsequent 20 weeks (25 mg twice daily). MTX at dosage of 6 or 8 mg/week was administered to patients in both groups.

RESULTS

The rate of 20 % improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24 was 69.5 % in the iguratimod group compared with 30.7 % in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Significant improvements in the ACR50, ACR70, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Disease Activity Score 28 <3.2, and rheumatoid factor were also observed. The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) were blood iron decrease, nasopharyngitis, and lymphocyte decrease. These AEs were mild or moderate in severity. No deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

The study results suggest that iguratimod in combination with MTX was efficacious and had a manageable safety profile.

The effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on osteoclastogenesis and bone destruction in rheumatoid arthritis

Finding the means to ameliorate and prevent bone destruction as well as control inflammation is an urgent issue in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recently, it has been demonstrated that osteoclastogenesis plays an important role in the bone destruction and pathogenesis of RA. Here, we review the effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMRAD) on the amelioration of bone destruction and osteoclastogenesis.

[Combination therapy using methotrexate with DMARDs or biologics--current status]

Methotrexate (MTX) is the most frequently used drug in combination treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. DMARD combinations are usually the second step after unsuccessful MTX monotherapy. Evidence-based combinations of MTX+leflunomide, MTX+cyclosporine and triple combination MTX+sulphasalazine+hydroxychloroquine (complemented by glucocorticoids) showed the best results.In the case of insufficient response to the DMARD combination, MTX should be used in combination with a biologic. To date, the most frequent biologic treatment is with TNF inhibitors, but studies have shown that all biologics (with the exception of Anakinra) have comparable success rates. The combination of MTX plus abatacept, MTX plus rituximab and MTX plus tocilizumab are very promising, both clinically and in terms of blocking radiological progression. The efficacy of biological therapy is generally better using MTX combination than monotherapy.The safety of MTX combination treatment with DMARDs is not significantly lower than that of the individual substances; therefore, the required safety controls are also the same.