Concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory multisystemic disease of unknown etiology and autoimmune nature that predominantly affects peripheral joints in a symmetrical fashion. Although much progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology of RA, its etiology remains unknown. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-6 play the important roles in the pathogenesis and maintenance of inflammation in RA. The presence of anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies aids in the diagnosis in patients with undifferentiated polyarthritis and is associated with a more aggressive RA. The natural history of RA causes joint deformity and disability, as well as reduced life expectancy, both due to increased cardiovascular risk, pulmonary involvement, infections, iatrogenesis or tumors. Early diagnosis and the use of targeted drugs to induce early remission have improved the RA prognosis.

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).

Comparison between leflunomide and sulfasalazine based triple therapy in methotrexate refractory rheumatoid arthritis: an open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

To compare efficacy and safety of two different combination csDMARD therapy in Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients. In this 24-week open-label, parallel-group non-inferiority, single-center clinical trial, Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease duration < 2 years, were randomized to either of the two treatment regimens-Methotrexate + Leflunomide + Hydroxychloroquine or Methotrexate + Sulfasalazine + Hydroxychloroquine. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving EULAR good response at 12 weeks. Non-inferiority of Leflunomide based therapy was confirmed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of treatment difference between the 2 groups was lower than the selected non-inferiority margin of (- 20%) in primary endpoint at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were improvement in DAS28, functional outcome and adverse events at 24 weeks. 136 eligible patients were randomized to either Leflunomide or Sulfasalazine group (68 in each group).63 and 59 patients in Leflunomide and 66 and 61 patients in Sulfasalazine group completed 12 and 24 weeks of trial, respectively. In Intension-to-treat analysis, EULAR good response was achieved by 58.8% and 54.4% patients (p = 0.7) at the end of 12 weeks, and 61.7% and 64.7% patients (p = 0.8) at the end of 24 weeks-in Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine group respectively. At 12 weeks, the difference in EULAR good response with 2-sided 95% confidence interval between 2 groups was 4.4% (- 12%, 20%) in intention-to-treat and 5.8% (- 11%, 23%) in perprotocol analysis.15 and 21 adverse events were recorded in Leflunomide and Sulfasalazine group respectively. Parenteral Methotrexate was required more in Sulfasalazine group due to gastrointestinal intolerance. Leflunomide based csDMARD therapy is non-inferior to Sulfasalazine based csDMARD therapy in Methotrexate-failed Rheumatoid arthritis patients with comparable safety profile. Trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02930343) dated 10.09.2016.

Initial methotrexate dosage is not associated with an increased risk of liver toxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine whether an initial methotrexate (MTX) dosage is associated with an increased risk of liver toxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 730 RA patients who started MTX treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the rheumatology clinic at Seoul National University Hospital. The patients were divided into three groups according to the initial dosage of MTX they received: low (MTX ≤ 7.5 mg/week), intermediate (MTX 10-12.5 mg/week), and high (MTX ≥ 15 mg/week) dosage groups. Hepatotoxicity, defined as elevations in aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and/or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels more than twofold above the upper limit of normal (2 × ULN), was examined during 90 days of MTX treatment. Predictors of hepatotoxicity were identified using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 730 patients, 10 (1.4%) patients developed hepatotoxicity. The rate of hepatotoxicity was not different between the three MTX dosage groups. Univariate logistic regression analyses showed that the risk of hepatotoxicity was not higher in the intermediate MTX dosage group (odds ratio (OR): 0.89, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.20-4.00, p = 0.877) or in the high MTX dosage group (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.24-6.14, p = 0.804) than in the low MTX dosage group. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that elevated baseline AST and/or ALT levels above ULN and concomitant leflunomide use were associated with MTX hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

The initial MTX dosage is not associated with increased hepatotoxicity in RA patients.

KEY POINTS

• An initial methotrexate (MTX) dosage is not associated with liver toxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). • RA patients with a baseline liver function test (LFT) abnormality or receiving concomitant leflunomide treatment should be monitored closely for LFT abnormalities during the early phase of MTX treatment.

Safety of the Methotrexate-leflunomide Combination in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Multicentric, Registry-based, Cohort Study (BiobadaBrasil)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of the methotrexate (MTX)-leflunomide (LEF) combination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), comparing it with other therapeutic schemes involving conventional synthetic (cs-) and biologic (b-) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi).

METHODS

Patients with RA starting a treatment course with a csDMARD (without previous use of bDMARD or JAKi) or their first bDMARD/JAKi were followed up in a registry-based, multicentric cohort study in Brazil (BiobadaBrasil). The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs); secondary outcomes included serious infections. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching analysis (PSMA) were used for statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

In total, 1671 patients (5349 patient-years [PY]) were enrolled; 452 patients (1537 PY) received MTX + LEF. The overall incidence of SAEs was 5.6 per 100 PY. The hazard of SAEs for MTX + LEF was not higher than for MTX or LEF (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.76-1.31, P = 0.98). MTX + LEF presented a lower hazard of SAEs (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.88, P = 0.01) and infectious SAEs (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.94, P = 0.03) than bDMARDs/JAKi with MTX or LEF. MTX + LEF presented lower hazard of SAEs than MTX + sulfasalazine (SSZ; aHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.65, P = 0.002). Analysis using PSMA confirmed the results obtained with traditional multivariate Cox analysis.

CONCLUSION

In our study, MTX + LEF presented a relatively good overall safety profile in comparison to MTX + SSZ and schemes involving advanced therapies in RA.

Hyaluronate-functionalized hydroxyapatite nanoparticles laden with methotrexate and teriflunomide for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an autoimmune inflammatory disorder is currently incurable. Methotrexate and Teriflunomide are routinely prescribed drugs but their uses are limited due to severe hepatotoxicity. Hyaluronic acid (HYA) is a targeting ligand for CD44 receptors overexpressed on inflamed macrophages. The present investigation aimed at design and fabrication of HYA coated hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (HA-NPs) loaded with Methotrexate (MTX) and Teriflunomide (TEF) (HAMT-NPs) to form HYA-HAMT-NPs for the treatment of RA. HYA-HAMT-NPs showed the nanoscale size of 274.9 ± 64 nm along with a zeta potential value of -26.80 ± 6.08 mV. FTIR spectra of HYA and HYA-HAMT-NPs proved the coating of HYA on HYA-HAMT-NPs. HYA-HAMT-NPs showed less cell viability compared to drugs on RAW 264.7 macrophage cells. A biodistribution study by gamma scintigraphy imaging further strengthened the results by revealing significantly higher (p<0.05) percentage radioactivity (76.76%) of HYA-HAMT-NPs in the synovial region. The results obtained by pharmacodynamic studies ensured the better efficacy of HYA-HAMT-NPs in preventing disease progression and promoting articular regeneration. Under hepatotoxicity evaluation, liver histopathology and liver enzyme assay revealed ~29% hepatotoxicity was reduced by HYA-HAMT-NPs when compared to conventional FOLITRAX-10 and AUBAGIO oral treatments. Overall, the results suggest that HYA-HAMT-NP is a promising delivery system to avoid drug-induced hepatotoxicity in RA.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of maintenance therapy with methotrexate compared with leflunomide for patients with RA having achieved disease control with both these drugs: results of a predefined sub-analysis of CareRA, a pragmatic RCT

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of step-down strategies for patients with well-controlled early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on a combination of methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) is currently lacking.

METHOD

The Care in early RA (CareRA) trial is a 2-year randomized pragmatic trial comparing different remission induction strategies in treatment-naïve patients with early RA. For this study, we included participants who achieved low disease activity (LDA) (DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2) between 40 to 52 weeks after starting a combination of MTX, LEF, and a prednisone bridging scheme followed by a treat-to-target approach. Patients were re-randomized to a maintenance monotherapy of either MTX 15 mg weekly or LEF 20 mg daily. Remission rates (DAS28-CRP < 2.6) at week 65 counted from re-randomization, as well as drug retention rates and safety during the 65 weeks of follow-up, were compared.

RESULTS

Remission rates at week 65 after re-randomization were numerically higher in patients assigned to MTX (29/32; 90.6%) compared with patients on LEF (20/27; 74.1%) (p = 0.091). Of patients assigned to MTX, 60% (19/32) maintained LDA while continuing their assigned monotherapy until week 65 after re-randomization versus 44% (12/27) in the LEF group (p = 0.25). Patients re-randomized to MTX were more frequently in LDA measured by Clinical Disease Activity Index (32/32; 100%) compared with patients on LEF (23/27; 85.2%) (p = 0.024) 65 weeks after re-randomization. According to survival analyses, the probability of maintaining MTX monotherapy was higher (81%) than maintaining LEF monotherapy (55%) for 65 weeks (p = 0.025) after re-randomization. Safety analysis after re-randomization showed a good safety profile in both groups.

CONCLUSION

MTX monotherapy seems not significantly more efficacious as maintenance treatment compared with LEF monotherapy but has a better retention rate and is well tolerated in early RA patients in LDA after combination therapy with both.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials NCT01172639 Key points • Methotrexate should be preferred over leflunomide as maintenance therapy after an initial intensive combination of these two drugs. • Methotrexate shows a better retention rate to leflunomide as maintenance therapy in this context.

Rheumatoid artrhitis treatment in Brazil: data from a large real-life multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Last decades witnessed great technological advances in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management, but their implementation in clinical practice might prove difficult. Despite the efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials this information needs to be confirmed by real life data. This study assessed real-life treatment among RA patients.

METHODS

REAL study included Brazilian RA patients from eleven centers. Interview and medical records were performed. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t or Mann-Whitney and categorical variables were assessed with chi-square or Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

1115 patients were included, women 89.5%. Median age 56.6 years, disease duration 152.5 months; 78.7% were rheumatoid fator positive; 55.2% had erosive disease; DAS28 (disease activity index-28 joints) = 3.5, HAQ (health assessment questionnaire) =0.875. The median duration of symptoms until the start of first DMARD was 12 months. A total of 529 (47.2%) patients used corticosteroids; 1022 (90.8%) were on conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs and 406 (36.1%) on biological (b) DMARDs. Methotrexate (MTX) was the most frequent csDMARD: 748 (66.5%) patients, followed by leflunomide (LFN), used by 381 (33.9%) of patients. MTX was associated to LFN in 142 (12.6%) patients. Only five (0.4%) patients used triple therapy (MTX + hydroxychloroquine + sulfasalazine) or sulfasalazine in monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in therapeutic resources, roughly half RA patients failed achieve T2T goals and 55.2% developed erosive disease. The frequent use of corticosteroids and delay in initiating DMARDs were demonstrated. Issues concerning timely access to medical care are crucial for effective management.

Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis: protocol of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial (COMPLETE-PsA)

Background

Both methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are registered and regularly prescribed as first-line treatments for the use in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and they are occasionally used in combination. However, evidence about their individual, and especially combined efficacy, in PsA is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of MTX and LEF combination therapy to MTX monotherapy in patients with PsA.

Methods

COMPLETE-PsA is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-untreated patients (n = 78) with clinical diagnosis of active (i.e. ≥2 swollen joints) PsA will be randomized 1:1 (stratified for high disease activity, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS] ≥ 5.4) to the combination or monotherapy. The intervention group receives MTX 25 mg (oral or subcutaneous) once weekly plus LEF 20 mg daily, and the control group receives the same but with placebo instead of LEF daily. Primary endpoint is between-group difference in PASDAS at 16 weeks, adjusted for baseline PASDAS. Key secondary parameters include between-group comparisons in change in Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score, skin score, enthesitis score, dactylitis score, and swollen/tender joint count, as well as the proportion of patients fulfilling minimal disease activity (MDA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria at week 16. Furthermore, safety, function and quality of life (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], Psoriatic Arthritic Impact of Disease [PSAID], Short Form 12 [SF-12]) will be assessed.

Discussion

This is, to our knowledge, the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of MTX and LEF combination therapy in patients with PsA. The study will provide important information for treatment strategies and treatment recommendations.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR7632 (3 December 2018). CMO NL66544.091.18 (19 November 2018).

Management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2019 updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology

The expanding range of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), biosimilar bDMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, has improved patient outcomes but increased the complexity of treatment decisions. These updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology provide guidance on the management of RA, with a focus on how to integrate newly available DMARDs into clinical practice. The recommendations were developed based on evidence from the literature along with local expert opinion. Early diagnosis of RA and prompt initiation of effective therapy remain crucial and we suggest a treat-to-target approach to guide optimal sequencing of DMARDs in RA patients to achieve tight disease control. Newly available DMARDs are incorporated in the treatment algorithm, resulting in a greater range of second-line treatment options. In the event of treatment failure or intolerance, switching to another DMARD with a similar or different mode of action may be considered. Given the variety of available treatments and the heterogeneity of patients with RA, treatment decisions should be tailored to the individual patient taking into consideration prognostic factors, medical comorbidities, drug safety, cost of treatment, and patient preference.

Comparison of combination therapy with methotrexate and sinomenine or leflunomide for active rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A combination of conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs improves the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but with high side-effects. Methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy that with high therapeutic efficacy and low toxicity is in demand in many countries to replace the use of expensive biological agents.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was an open-label, 24-week, parallel randomized controlled trial conducted between November 2015 and December 2017.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned at a 3:2 ratio to receive MTX combined with sinomenine (SIN) at a dose of 120 mg twice daily, or leflunomide (LEF) at a dose of 20 mg once daily. Efficacy and safety were assessed at weeks 4, 12 and 24. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)50 response and a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response at week 24.

RESULTS

A total of 101/120 (84.2%) patients completed 24 weeks of observation. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 65.3% of patients treated with MTX + SIN showed improved disease activity as determined by the ACR50 response at week 24 compared to 69.6% of patients treated with MTX + LEF. A similar insignificant pattern was found for the ACR20 and ACR70 responses, as well as the clinical disease activity index, EULAR response, and remission and low disease activity rates between these two treatment groups. The per-protocol analysis showed results consistent with those of the ITT analysis. Notably, significant reductions in gastrointestinal adverse reactions and liver toxicity were found in patients treated with MTX + SIN compared to patients treated with MTX + LEF (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Considering the balance of efficacy and toxicity, the current study provides evidence that MTX + SIN combination therapy is probably one of the choices for treating patients with active rheumatoid arthritis in addition to MTX + LEF combination therapy.

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.

Effects of the Cathepsin K Inhibitor ONO-5334 and Concomitant Use of ONO-5334 with Methotrexate on Collagen-Induced Arthritis in Cynomolgus Monkeys

We examined whether the cathepsin K inhibitor, ONO-5334, administered alone or in combination with methotrexate (MTX), could ameliorate joint destruction evoked by collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) in female cynomolgus monkeys. CIA was induced by immunizing with bovine type II collagen. ONO-5334 (30 mg/kg/day) was orally administered once daily and MTX (10 mg/body/day) twice weekly for 9 weeks. X-ray (evaluation of joint destruction) and swelling (inflammatory) scores of proximal interphalangeal (PIP), distal interphalangeal (DIP), and metacarpophalangeal (MP) joints were evaluated. Urinary concentrations of C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I) and type II collagen (CTX-II) were measured. Arthritis, accompanied by bone and cartilage destruction, was successfully induced in this collagen-induced arthritis monkey model. ONO-5334 showed no suppressive effect on joint swelling, while the joint swelling scores in the MTX and combination (ONO-5334 + MTX) groups were less than 50% compared with the control group. ONO-5334 decreased X-ray score by a mean of 64% (p<0.05 vs the control group), and MTX also decreased in X-ray score by a mean of 46% but with no statistical significance. Combination of ONO-5334 and MTX further decreased the X-ray score by 28% over MTX group (74% reduction vs the control group, p<0.01). Maximum increase in CTX-I (10-fold) and CTX-II (7-fold) compared to baseline was observed at 7 and 3 weeks after the first sensitization, respectively. After treatment with ONO-5334 alone or in combination with MTX, concentrations were maintained near baseline for both markers. In conclusion, ONO-5334 prevented joint destruction but not joint inflammation in this monkey CIA model. Concomitant use of ONO-5334 with MTX reduced architectural joint destruction compared to MTX alone; therefore, ONO-5334 may help to prevent joint destruction in combination with MTX for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Efficacy and Safety of Combined Therapy With Synthetic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

1) To systematically and critically review the evidence of combined therapy with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 2) To design practical recommendations on their use.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed with a sensitive bibliographic search strategy in Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. We selected randomized clinical trials that analyzed the efficacy and/or safety of 1) combined therapy of synthetic compared with sequential therapy of synthetic DMARD in early RA; and 2) combination of methotrexate+leflunomide or triple therapy with synthetic DMARD in established RA refractory to synthetic DMARD. Two reviewers made the first selection by title and abstract and 11 performed the selection after detailed review of the articles and data collection. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the Jadad scale. Based on the results, related recommendations were agreed upon in a nominal group meeting.

RESULTS

Ultimately, no articles were included in the SLR. The analysis of the reviewed articles demonstrated the effectiveness of the treatment with synthetic DMARD following a "treat to target" strategy in early RA patients, and of combination therapy of synthetic DMARD in established RA refractory to synthetic DMARD. This resulted in 6 recommendations concerning combination therapy with synthetic DMARD.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations aim to facilitate decision-making with the use of combined therapy with DMARD in RA.

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

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

Neutropenia in the Elderly: A Rheumatology Perspective

The majority of rheumatic diseases are chronic and require long-term use of disease-modifying agents to confer the best chance of controlling the disease. A significant proportion of these drugs have a risk, albeit small, of potentially serious side effects, such as neutropenia; therefore, there has been an understandable concern over the use of potentially toxic rheumatic drugs in the elderly. Factors that may contribute to this concern include age, pre-existing co-morbidities, polypharmacy, difficulty in monitoring side effects, and patient perception. The risk of using such medication needs to be balanced with their benefits in controlling chronic disease. This review discusses how rheumatic disease and anti-rheumatic medication are associated with neutropenia in an older age group. Of the rheumatic diseases, we give special focus to rheumatoid arthritis and the use of methotrexate, as well as touching on management considerations in neutropenia.

Leflunomide is equally efficacious and safe compared to low dose rituximab in refractory rheumatoid arthritis given in combination with methotrexate: results from a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial

Background

The standard dose of rituximab used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 1000 mg but recent studies have shown that low dose (500 mg) is also effective. Efficacy of low dose rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to first-line non-biologic Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), compared to leflunomide is unknown. In a tertiary care referral setting, we conducted a randomized, double blind controlled clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of low-dose rituximab-methotrexate combination with leflunomide-methotrexate combination.

Methods

Patients on methotrexate (10-20 mg/week) with a Disease Activity Score (DAS) > 3.2 were randomly assigned to rituximab (500 mg on days 1 and 15) or leflunomide (10-20 mg/day). The primary end-point was ACR20 at 24 weeks. Sample of 40 had 70% power to detect a 30% difference. ACR50, ACR70, DAS, EULAR good response, CD3 + (T cell), CD19 + (B cell) and CD19 + CD27+ (memory B cell) counts, tetanus and pneumococcal antibody levels were secondary end points.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups. At week 24, ACR20 was 85% vs 84% (p = 0.93), ACR50 was 60% vs. 64% (p = 0.79) and ACR70 was 35% vs 32% (P = 0.84), in rituximab and in leflunomide groups respectively. Serious adverse events were similar.

With rituximab there was significant reduction in B cells (p < 0.001), memory B cells (p < 0.001) and pneumococcal antibody levels (P < 0.05) without significant changes in T cells (p = 0.835) and tetanus antibody levels (p = 0.424) at 24 weeks. With leflunomide, significant reduction in memory B cells (p < 0.01) and pneumococcal antibody levels (p < 0.01) occurred without significant changes in B cells (P > 0.05), T cells (P > 0.05) or tetanus antibody levels (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Leflunomide-methotrexate combination is as efficacious as low-dose rituximab-methotrexate combination at 24 weeks, in RA patient’s refractory to initial DMARDs. The high responses seen in both groups have favorable cost implications for patients in developing countries. Changes in immune parameters with leflunomide are novel and need further characterization.

Trial registration

The trial was registered with the Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR), a publicly accessible primary registry linked to the registry network of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO (WHO-ICTRP) (registration number: SLCTR/2008/008 dated 16th May 2008).

IL-22-producing CD4+T cells in the treatment response of rheumatoid arthritis to combination therapy with methotrexate and leflunomide

T cells are key players in immune-mediated rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We previously reported that interleukin (IL)-22+CD4+T helper (IL-22+ Th) cells and IL-22 critically control the pathogenesis of RA. Here we monitored circulating levels of different IL-22+ Th cell subsets and measured plasma levels of IL-22, IL-17, and interferon (IFN)-γ in 60 patients with active RA following 12-week combination methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) therapy (MTX+LEF) and 20 healthy individuals. We found the frequencies of circulating IFN-γ-IL-17-IL-22+ (Th22), IFN-γ-IL-17+ (total Th17), IFN-γ+IL-17-IL-22+ (IL-22+Th1) cells, and IFN-γ-IL-17+IL-22+ (IL-22+Th17) cells, as well as the plasma levels of IL-22, IL-17 and IFN-γ to be significantly reduced in RA patients that responded to treatment, but not in non-responders. Reductions in plasma IL-22 level significantly correlated with percentage of circulating Th22 cells and the decrease of plasma IL-22 level correlated with the reduction of DAS28 in responders. Our data suggests that circulating Th22 cells and plasma IL-22 level play a detrimental role in RA. The combination MTX+LEF therapy, by targeting Th22 cells and reducing IL-22 level, relieves the immune defects and ameliorates symptoms of RA. This study provides novel mechanistic understanding of the pathogenesis of RA, which may promote a design of better therapies for RA.

Combination leflunomide and methotrexate in refractory rheumatoid arthritis: a biologic sparing approach

BACKGROUND

In resource-constrained settings where biologic agents are not widely available, there are limited therapeutic options for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to other synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic (DMARD) therapies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of leflunomide (LEF) with methotrexate (MTX) in refractory RA.

METHODS

A retrospective record review of adult RA patients treated with LEF/MTX. Demographic details, adverse reactions, and the 3-variable 28 joint disease activity score (DAS28-3) were recorded at initiation of LEF/MTX therapy, and after 4 and 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Of 194 patients, most were middle-aged seropositive Black African females, with established disease [mean (standard deviation, SD) disease duration 9.4 (8.2) years] and time on previous DMARDs of 7.0 (5.5) years. Before adding LEF, the mean (SD) dose of MTX was 21.7 (3.5) mg/week, and 87.6% of patients used low dose oral corticosteroids. A good or moderate EULAR response was achieved by 44% and 42% of patients, and the retention rate was 71%. Major infections were seen in 6 patients: comprising 2 deaths, 3 cases of leucopaenia and septicaemia and 1 case of tuberculosis. Hepatotoxicity (n = 3), intolerable gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 3), and hypertension (n = 17) were the most common problems. Predictors of remission or low disease activity at 12 months was a baseline DAS28-3 ⩽ 5.5 [odds ratio (OR) = 2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-5.6; p = 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

LEF/MTX was effective in the majority of patients in this cohort of mainly Black African women who failed other combination synthetic DMARDs, particularly in those with moderate disease activity at the time of addition of LEF. Infections and hypertension were important complications. In a setting where biologic DMARDs are not readily accessible, the combination of LEF/MTX is a cost-effective approach.

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.

Immunomodulation of rheumatologic disorders with non-biologic disease modifying antirheumtic drugs

Although biological agents have revolutionized the immunomodulation of many rheumatic disorders, conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) remain important glucocorticosteroid sparing agents and combination partners. In rheumatoid arthritis, low-dose glucocorticosteroids can be regarded as a DMARD due to preventive effects on joint erosions. Therapy with methothrexate and possibly also other DMARDs may alter the natural evolution of rheumatoid arthritis severity over time and therapy should be instituted as early as possible. Leflunomide is an equipotent alternative to methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis, if methotrexate cannot be tolerated. Hydroxychloroquine inhibits toll-like receptor signaling and exerts antithrombotic and antihyperlipidemic effects, all thought to be beneficial in systemic lupus erythematosus. Hydroxychloroquine improves organ involvement in lupus, prevents lupus flares, and reduces mortality. It should be given to every lupus patient without contraindications.

Leflunomide Use and Risk of Lung Disease in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative risk (RR) of pulmonary disease among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with leflunomide (LEF).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to April 15, 2014. We included double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCT) of LEF versus placebo or active comparator agents in adults with RA. Studies with fewer than 50 subjects or shorter than 12 weeks were excluded. Two investigators independently searched both databases. All authors reviewed selected studies. We compared RR differences using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method to assess total respiratory adverse events, infectious respiratory adverse events, noninfectious respiratory adverse events, interstitial lung disease, and death.

RESULTS

Our literature search returned 5673 results. A total of 8 studies, 4 with placebo comparators, met our inclusion criteria. There were 708 respiratory adverse events documented in 4579 participants. Six cases of pneumonitis occurred, all in the comparator group. Four pulmonary deaths were reported, none in the LEF group. LEF was not associated with an increased risk of total adverse respiratory events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56-1.78) or infectious respiratory adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.58-1.82). LEF was associated with a decreased risk of noninfectious respiratory adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.97).

CONCLUSION

Our study found no evidence of increased respiratory adverse events in RCT of LEF treatment.

MMP-3 as a predictor for structural remission in RA patients treated with MTX monotherapy

Background

The study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy on the radiographic progression of individual rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, each of whom had received MTX monotherapy for 3 years with an option to change to biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). We also looked for predictors of radiographic non-progression in these patients.

Methods

Rheumatoid patients (n = 161) were prospectively followed for 3 years while receiving low-dose MTX monotherapy unless disease was otherwise active and/or adverse events appeared. Their disease activity and radiographic progression were evaluated with reference to disease activity score 28 (DAS28), modified health assessment of questionnaire (mHAQ) and other indices. The change in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score per year (∆TSS) was assessed using probability plots, in which the patients were classified into the subgroups showing structural remission (REM; ∆TSS ≤0.5), radiographic progression (∆TSS >3) or rapid radiographic progression (RRP; ∆TSS >5).

Results

MTX monotherapy, continued until disease became active and/or adverse event appeared, was associated with a significant improvement (p <0.0001) in the DAS28-ESR (3) scores, % DAS28 remission, and mHAQ scores each year, from baseline to 3 years. The mHAQ remission rate (∆mHAQ <0.5) and Boolean remission were also improved from 16 to 60 % and 0.8 to 24.0 %, respectively. We found that the ratio of patients classified as REM increased yearly from 62/161 (38.5 %) to 69/137 (50.4 %), while those classified as ∆TSS >3 decreased from 55/161 (34.2 %) to 28/137 (20.4 %) and those in RRP decreased from 35/161 (21.7 %) to 15/137 (10.9 %). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses showed that serum matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) <103.7 ng/ml at outset predicts a patient subgroup that exhibits no radiographic progression.

Conclusions

Half of rheumatoid patients treated with MTX monotherapy for 3 years exhibited structural remission, and this outcome can be predicted at the outset by lower serum MMP-3.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-016-0948-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Unraveling the conundrum

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

Survey on management strategies of rheumatoid arthritis in Saudi Arabia: a Saudi Society for Rheumatology Initiative

AIM

Currently there are no national recommendation guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Saudi Arabia, which has led to a lack of standard of care. The aim of this study is to explore RA management strategies in practicing rheumatologists in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A 38 questions survey was designed using an electronic website. The survey was distributed through the official email of the Saudi Society for Rheumatology. Rheumatologists with at least 1 year of experience were included. Descriptive analysis was used to report demographics and participants' answers. Chi-square and Fischer's exact test were used to evaluate the relation between the characteristics of participants and their answers.

RESULTS

Out of 120 registered practicing adult rheumatologists, 54 (45%) completed the survey. The majority were male 31 (57.4%) and Saudis 36 (66.7%). Forty-two participants (77.8%) use clinical outcome measures in daily clinical practice to guide treatment decisions with the majority using the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (61.1%). Quality of life measures were used by 22 (40.7%) participants with statistically significant male predominance (P = 0.043). Time consumption was the most important cause for not using any outcome measures. Thirteen (24.1%) and 17 (31.5%) participants do not use parenteral methotrexate and leflunomide, respectively, because of unavailability in the hospital formulary. Nine (16.7%) and 38 (70.37%) participants do not see a role for tofacitinib and biosimilars, respectively, in the management of RA.

CONCLUSION

This survey has highlighted many areas of improvement in the practice of rheumatologists in Saudi Arabia and should be the focus of future educational activities.

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.

Clinical outcomes of low-dose leflunomide for rheumatoid arthritis complicated with Hepatitis B virus carriage and safety observation

Objective:

To study the clinical outcomes of low-dose leflunomide for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) complicated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) carriage and to observe the safety.

Methods:

A total of 115 RA patients were divided into three groups according to the state of HBV. They were all given leflunomide to observe the clinical outcomes and whether HBV was activated.

Results:

The indices (e.g. activity score) of all patients were significantly better after treatment than those before (P < 0.05), with 89.00% (92/115) of them reaching ACR20. Fourteen cases (12.2%) suffered from abnormal liver functions, and 5 cases who had HBV reactivation originated from the HBV carriage group. Neither the previous HBV infection group nor the infection-free group succumbed to HBV reactivation. The multiple regression model showed that the HBV reactivation risk of RA patients treated by leflunomide was increased by 30% by the basic state of hepatitis B as well as alanine transaminase level and swollen joint count before treatment.

Conclusion:

Leflunomide exerted satisfactory therapeutic effects on RA, but liver diseases, liver function, HBV-DNA load and the reactivation risks of carried HBV should be thoroughly checked and cautiously pondered.

Iguratimod for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Japan

Iguratimod (IGU), a small-molecule compound, was developed as a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in Japan. The pharmacological studies showed that inhibition of the production of cytokines and immunoglobulins mainly contributes to its improvement effect on animal arthritis models. The first clinical study of IGU in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis was started in 1992 and Phase III studies were started in 1998. From the results of Phase II studies, a dose-escalating regimen was recommended to relieve the side effects. In a double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of the drug with those of placebo and salazosulfapyridine, it was confirmed that IGU was superior to placebo and was not inferior to salazosulfapyridine. Furthermore, a double-blind controlled trial of IGU in combination with methotrexate revealed an efficacious and manageable safety profile. IGU would be widely used as a new option for rheumatoid arthritis treatment and combination drug with methotrexate.

Infliximab, methotrexate and their combination for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of infliximab + methotrexate (IFX + MTX) regimens versus MTX alone or in combination with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We searched through major databases, the grey literature and did a manual search. Two independent reviewers conducted the selection, data extraction and analysis of the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager(®) 5.1 software. Nine trials were included. The mean modified Jadad score was 4.4, but only one study showed low risk of bias. IFX + MTX regimen presented better responses in clinical outcomes of ACR and DAS28 by up to 54 weeks, and of radiographic progression by up to 104 weeks. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy was lower in the IFX + MTX group. No significant difference in adverse events was observed. The IFX + MTX combination is more effective than treatment with MTX alone or DMARDs combination. This regimen presented good tolerability in patients previously treated with DMARDs, not treated with MTX or with insufficient responses to MTX. The efficacy of IFX + MTX is noted primarily during initial periods of treatment. High doses of IFX were as effective as the standard dose, but with possible higher risk of serious infections. Therefore, we advise clinicians to use the standard dose of IFX 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone and in combination with other conventional DMARDs using the T2T strategy. A cohort study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with methotrexate (MTX), by itself or combined with other non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate, MTX with prednisolone, MTX with leflunomide, MTX with chloroquine, and MTX with sulfasalazine) on clinimetric outcomes in a retrospective cohort with a 6-month follow-up and under a Treat to Target (T2T) approach. Patients in treatment with conventional DMARDs and classified as moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA) were included. Changes in disease activity score (DAS28), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), tender joint count (TJC), and swollen joint count (SJC) are compared using the Wilcoxon nonparametric test for paired data. Hypothesis contrasts were raised in order to look for differences between the different exposure groups and the outcomes defined by means of the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) nonparametric test. Follow-up was documented in 307 patients, including 250 (81.4%) women. At the onset, 243 subjects (79.2%) were classified as MDA and 64 (20.9%) in HDA. A total of 247 subjects (80.4%) presented some degree of improvement, with 156 subjects (51%) entering remission, which is a significant number (p value = 0.047). There were no differences in the level of severity between the treatment groups (p = 0.98). This study, developed in a cohort of patients with RA with moderate or severe disease activity who were treated with MTX by itself or combined with other non-biological DMARDs under T2T strategy, showed a decrease in the severity of disease activity in 80% of patients. The difference between monotherapy (MTX) and the combinations with other non-biological DMARDs could not be established.

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.