Leflunomide: long-term clinical experience and new uses

Efficacy and safety of leflunomide combined with corticosteroids for the treatment of IgA nephropathy: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide combined with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone, for IgA nephropathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were retrieved by searching of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane's Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases on 11 October 2021. A random-effect model incorporating the heterogeneity was used to pool the results. The efficacy outcomes included the complete remission rate of proteinuria, overall response rate (the combined rates of patients with complete and partial remission of proteinuria), changes of urine protein excretion (UPE), serum creatinine (SCr), and estimated glomerular infiltrating rate (eGFR).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included. Patients receiving the combined therapy had a higher complete remission rate (relative risk [RR]: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.08-1.55, p = 0.006; I² = 0%) and overall response rate (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.10-1.26, p < 0.001, I² = 0%) compared to patients who received CS alone. Besides, combined therapy was associated with significantly reduced levels of UPE (mean difference [MD]: -0.30 g/24h, 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.16, p < 0.001; I² = 34%) and SCr (MD: -7.55 mmol/L, 95% CI: -11.06 to -4.04, p < 0.001; I² = 34%), and increased level of eGFR (MD: 6.51 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI: 4.06-8.97, p < 0.001; I² = 0%). The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined treatment with leflunomide and corticosteroids was more effective than corticosteroids alone for patients with IgA nephropathy.

Recent developments in anti-rheumatic drugs in pediatrics: treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common autoimmune-autoinflammatory disease in childhood and affects approximately 1 in 1,000 children. Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment options, JIA remains a chronic condition for most affected children. Recent evidence suggests that disease control at onset may determine the tempo of subsequent disease course and long-term outcomes, and raises the concept of a therapeutic window of opportunity in patients with JIA. This underscores the importance of early aggressive treatment in patients with JIA. With the advent of novel biologic therapeutics, the repertoire of agents available for treatment of children with JIA has greatly increased. The present article will summarize recent developments in the medical treatment of children with JIA and will offer insights into emerging therapies.

Introducing the first polymer-free leflunomide eluting stent

BACKGROUND

We here describe the pharmacological characteristic, in vivo efficacy, and in vitro mechanisms of a polymer-free leflunomide eluting stent in comparison to its rapamycin-coated equivalent.

METHODS

Stents were coated with 40 mM solutions of leflunomide (L) or rapamycin (R) or were left uncoated (BM). Neointima formation was assessed 6 weeks after implantation into Sprague Dawley rats by optical coherence tomographies (OCT) and histopathology. In vitro proliferation assays were performed using isolated endothelial and smooth-muscle-cells from Sprague Dawley rats to investigate the cell-specific pharmacokinetic effect of leflunomide and rapamycin.

RESULTS

HPLC-based drug release kinetics revealed a similar profile with 90% of the drug being released after 12.1+/-0.2 (L) and 13.0+/-0.2 days (R). After 6 weeks, OCTs showed that in-stent luminal obliteration was less for the coated stents (L:12.0+/-9.4%, R:13.3+/-13.1%) when compared to identical bare metal stents (BM:26.4+/-4.7%; p<or=0.046). Histology with computer-assisted morphometry was performed and demonstrated reduced in-stent I/M thickness ratios (L:2.5+/-1.2, R:3.7+/-3.3, BM:6.7+/-2.3, p<or=0.049 for L and R vs. BM) and neointimal areas (L:0.6+/-0.3, R:0.7+/-0.2, BM:1.3+/-0.4, p<or=0.039 for L and R vs. BM) with stent coating. No differences were found for injury and inflammation scores (L and R vs. BM; p=NS). In vitro SMC proliferation was dose-dependently and similarly inhibited by L and R at 1-100 nM (p=NS L vs. R). Interestingly, human EC proliferation at 10-100 nM was significantly inhibited only by R (p<0.001), but not by L (p=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The diminished inhibition of EC proliferation may improve arterial healing and contribute to the safety profile of the leflunomide stent.

Leflunomide in psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common unique form of inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis. Its exact prevalence is unknown but 5-30% of the 2-3% of subjects of the general population affected with psoriasis are developing PsA. Typically PsA presents as an oligoarticular asymmetrical arthritis with predominant distal finger joint pattern, presence of spinal involvement enthesitis and dactylitis. There is evidence that T-cells play a key role in the immunopathology of PsA as well as Psoriasis. Leflunomide, a selective pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor with the property to inhibit T-cell activation and proliferation has been shown to improve both joint and skin symptoms in patients with PsA. Significant response rates have been observed for Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC), modified ACR20 and PASI 50 after 24 weeks of treatment with 20 mg/d Leflunomide orally in a randomised, placebo controlled multicenter trial (TOPAS Study). Leflunomide treatment also improved quality of life and showed a favourable safety profile. It is therefore concluded that Leflunomide offers an efficacious, well tolerated, safe, and relatively inexpensive therapeutic option for the treatment of actively inflamed joints and psoriatic skin lesions in patients with PsA.

Current management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

The goal of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatment is to achieve remission of disease. The absence of a full understanding of the disease pathogenesis for JIA hinders the development of truly effective treatment approaches. Further, the lack of clear knowledge regarding the mechanisms of action of rheumatologic medications and the existence of few randomized controlled trials leaves clinicians with very little evidence upon which to base decisions regarding the best timing, dosages or combinations of medications to be used for fully effective treatment of JIA. There is now a shift in treatment focus from that of chasing failure (gradual add-on approach to the use of medications) to one of early aggressive combination treatment. This chapter will discuss the current approaches to medical management of JIA and the medications currently available for use. JIA treatment is a vast, rich area in need of research.

[Modern immunosuppression following renal transplantation. Standard or tailor made?]

Renal transplantation is by far the best therapeutic option for end-stage kidney disease with respect to quality of life, psychosocial rehabilitation, and even patient survival. Optimal immunosuppressive therapy should provide effective prophylaxis of both acute rejection and chronic allograft dysfunction. Thus immunosuppressive therapy should help to maintain good renal function and could help to prevent premature death of the recipient. With the introduction of new immunosuppressants over the last decade a dramatic reduction of acute rejection rates from approximately 50% to 15-30% could be achieved. However, the search for novel immunosuppressive drugs continues, drugs which not only lead to effective prevention of acute rejection, but also have an impact on chronic allograft dysfunction and prevent further deterioration of this multifactorial process. Based on a short presentation of the "three signal model" of immunoactivation, the most important mechanisms and characteristics of the presently available immunosuppressants are described. Because the immunosuppressive objectives change over time, a phase-dependent adaptation is necessary. At present, most centers in Germany use an immunosuppressive combination therapy, consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI; cyclosporine or tacrolimus), a glucocorticoid (prednisolone or methylprednisolone), and mycophenolic acid (MPA), which is eventually combined with an antibody (e.g., IL-2R antibody) for induction. In contrast to the clear situation 10 years ago, highly specialized knowledge is required today with respect to mechanism of action, side effects, and potential interactions. This may enable the physician to adopt patient-oriented optimal immunosuppression. In the near future more individualized treatment options will be employed, which are adapted to the characteristics and side effects of the immunosuppressant, as well as to the characteristics of the donor, the recipient, and the transplanted organ such as immunology and ischemia. Another aspect is the reduction or elimination of some immunosuppressants at the earliest possible time. With new diagnostic and genetic markers the relationship between recipient and transplanted organ will be characterized better in the future and therapy will become more individualized. Altogether, these measures as well as optimized supportive therapy will help to further improve the longevity of the transplanted organ.