Methotrexate treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review on doses and administration routes

BACKGROUND

To describe the evidence of methotrexate (MTX) initiation strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, in the case of non-responders, analyse the efficacy and safety of route and dose optimisation.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of randomised controlled trials according to PRISMA Scoping Reviews Checklist and the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched without language restriction, and hand searches of relevant articles were examined.

RESULTS

We identified 1,367 potentially eligible studies, of which 12 were selected based on the titles and abstracts and then on the full-length articles. In naïve-MTX patients, a linear dose-response relationship for starting dose was found between 5 mg/m2/week (7.5-10 mg/week) and 10 mg/m2/week (15-22 mg/week), without toxicity correlation. A higher initial dose of MTX (25 mg vs. 15 mg) was more effective, resulting in fewer dose increases due to ineffectiveness and more dose reductions due to higher remission rates. There was also a trend towards increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Comparing different routes of administration of MTX, subcutaneous MTX showed a statistically higher ACR20 response (85%) in comparison with oral MTX (77%) (p < 0.05). The clinical efficacy and safety of accelerated and conventional start MTX regimens were comparable between 7.5 and 15 mg with a 2,5 mg dose increase every two weeks. In RA patients who have failed the initial treatment with MTX, the stepwise increase in MTX doses is associated with a higher ACR20 response and sustained remission rate than other strategies. In MTX non-responders, optimisation to SC MTX was associated with improvements in ACR20 and ACR50 rates with similar toxicity between groups. In the early RA patients subgroup, SC MTX showed higher ACR20 response rates than oral MTX, and intensive oral methods have a much higher sustained remission rate, shorter mean time to remission, and better clinical disease activity measures than conventional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher starting doses of MTX and initial subcutaneous MTX made better performance in improving the ACR20 response, although the clinical effectiveness and safety of other MTX start regimens are comparable. This scoping review provides evidence in support of optimising MTX treatment in terms of route and dose prior to concluding that MTX treatment in RA patients has failed.

Factors associated with the composition of the gut microbiome in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis and its value for predicting treatment responses

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the gut microbiota of patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have been managed with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for a long time. We focused on factors that might affect composition of the gut microbiota. Furthermore, we investigated whether gut microbiota composition predicts future clinical responses to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in patients with an insufficient response to initial therapy.

METHODS

We recruited 94 patients with RA and 30 healthy participants. Fecal gut microbiome was analyzed by 16S rRNA amplificon sequencing; the resulting raw reads were processed based on QIIME2. Calypso online software was used for data visualization and to compare microbial composition between groups. For RA patients with moderate-to-high disease activity, treatment was changed after stool collection, and responses were observed 6 months later.

RESULTS

The composition of the gut microbiota in patients with established RA was different from that of healthy participants. Young RA patients (< 45 years) had reduced richness, evenness, and distinct gut microbial compositions when compared with older RA patients and healthy individuals. Disease activity and rheumatoid factor levels were not associated with microbiome composition. Overall, biological DMARDs and csDMARDs, except sulfasalazine and TNF inhibitors, respectively, were not associated with the gut microbial composition in patients with established RA. However, the combination of Subdoligranulum and Fusicatenibacter genera was associated with a future good response to second-line csDMARDs in patients who showed an insufficient response to first-line csDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

Gut microbial composition in patients with established RA is different from that in healthy individuals. Thus, the gut microbiome has the potential to predict responses of some RA patients to csDMARDs.

Time to response for clinical and patient-reported outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo

Background

This study examined the time to clinically meaningful response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo switching to tofacitinib.

Methods

Data were from two phase 3 studies, OPAL Broaden (12 months) and OPAL Beyond (6 months). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks (OPAL Broaden only), or placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3. Baseline to initial response time was according to pre-defined clinically meaningful criteria on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; ≥ 0.35-point improvement), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F; ≥ 4-point improvement), Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS; post-baseline score ≤ 3.2 and > 1.6-point improvement from baseline), and minimal disease activity (MDA; meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria) composite.

Results

In OPAL Broaden, median time to initial HAQ-DI score response was 29, 53, and 30 days in patients treated with tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, or adalimumab, compared with 162 and 112 days in patients treated with placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3, respectively. Across studies, median time to initial FACIT-F total score response was shorter in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID (31 days) vs other groups (84–92 days). Median time to initial response was approximately 11 (MDA)/6–9 months (PASDAS) in tofacitinib/adalimumab groups in OPAL Broaden.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates tofacitinib’s efficacy on most patient-reported and clinical endpoints over time and shows a shorter time to initial, clinically meaningful response in patients receiving tofacitinib vs patients switching from placebo to tofacitinib.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01877668. Registered June 12, 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01882439. Registered June 18, 2013.

The effect of targeted rheumatoid arthritis therapeutics on systemic inflammation and anemia: analysis of data from the CorEvitas RA registry

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri), and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) on hemoglobin (Hb) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in adults enrolled in CorEvitas (formerly Corrona), a large US rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registry.

METHODS

Patients who initiated TNFi, IL-6Ri, or JAKi treatment during or after January 2010, had Hb and CRP measurements at baseline and 6-month follow-up (± 3 months) and had continued therapy at least until that follow-up, through March 2020, were included in the analysis. Changes in Hb and CRP were assessed at month 6. Abnormal Hb was defined as < 12 g/dL (women) or < 13 g/dL (men); abnormal CRP was ≥ 0.8 mg/dL. Differences in Hb and CRP levels were evaluated using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 2772 patients (TNFi, 65%; IL-6Ri, 17%; JAKi, 17%) evaluated, 1044 (38%) had abnormal Hb or CRP at initiation; an additional 252 (9%) had both abnormal Hb and CRP. At month 6, the IL-6Ri group had a greater Hb increase than the TNFi (mean difference in effect on Hb: 0.28 g/dL; 95% CI 0.19-0.38) and JAKi (mean difference in effect on Hb: 0.47 g/dL; 95% CI 0.35-0.58) groups, regardless of baseline Hb status (both p < 0.001). The CRP decrease at month 6 was greater with IL-6Ri compared with TNFi and JAKi, regardless of baseline CRP status (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These real-world results align with the mechanism of IL-6R inhibition and may inform treatment decisions for patients with RA.

Tacrolimus as an alternative treatment for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 27 patients with JIA who received tacrolimus therapy at the Department of Pediatric Rheumatology of the Tokyo Medical and Dental University between April 2019 and August 2020. We collected background and clinical characteristics at the time of add-on tacrolimus therapy initiation (baseline; Month 0) and after 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was successful medication reduction after 12 months. Patients requiring reduced and additional treatments were assigned as 'did not require additional treatment patients' and 'required additional treatment patients', respectively. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the continuous distribution of laboratory data and Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-27 at 3, 6, and 12 months relative to baseline values. Statistical significance was set as p < .05.

RESULTS

Among the 27 included cases, 17 patients were classified as did not require additional treatment patients, and there was a significant improvement in Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-27 scores in this group (p < .05). No patients presented tacrolimus-related adverse events throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

Tacrolimus is an effective and safe therapeutic alternative for approximately 60% of patients with JIA.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib With Continuing Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in South Korea

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment with tofacitinib and subsequently incorporating it into a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) treatment sequence and to compare the cost-effectiveness of this sequence with that of continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A cohort-based Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two tofacitinib treatment sequences compared with that of continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence over a lifetime. Of the two tofacitinib sequences, the first consisted of initial tofacitinib treatment followed by biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and the second consisted of csDMARD treatments followed by tofacitinib. A third treatment sequence, continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence before starting bDMARDs, was used as a comparator. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates (ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70) after 6 months, which were converted to changes in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score. Utility was estimated by mapping from the HAQ-DI score, costs were analyzed from a Korean societal perspective, and outcomes were considered in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a lifetime for starting with tofacitinib and incorporating tofacitinib into the csDMARD treatment sequence versus continuing csDMARDs only were US$14,537 per QALY and US$7,086 per QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results.

Conclusion

Starting with tofacitinib and incorporating it into a csDMARDs treatment sequence is cost-effective compared to continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with RA.

The clinical effectiveness of intensive management in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: The titrate trial

OBJECTIVES

Many trials have shown that intensive management is effective in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). But its benefits are unproven for the large number of RA patients seen in routine care who have established, moderately active RA and are already taking conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The TITRATE trial studied whether these patients also benefit from intensive management and, in particular, achieve more remissions.

METHODS

A 12-month multicentre individually randomised trial compared standard care with monthly intensive management appointments which was delivered by specially trained healthcare professionals and incorporated monthly clinical assessments, medication titration and psychosocial support. The primary outcome was 12-month remission assessed using the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR). Secondary outcomes included fatigue, disability, harms and healthcare costs. Intention-to-treat multivariable logistic- and linear regression analyses compared treatment arms with multiple imputation used for missing data.

RESULTS

459 patients were screened and 335 were randomised (168 intensive management; 167 standard care); 303 (90%) patients provided 12-month outcomes. Intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions compared to standard care (32% vs 18%, p = 0.004). Intensive management also significantly increased remissions using a range of alternative remission criteria and increased patients with DAS28-ESR low disease activity scores. (48% vs 32%, p = 0.005). In addition it substantially reduced fatigue (mean difference -18; 95% CI: -24, -11, p<0.001). There was no evidence that serious adverse events (intensive management =15 vs standard care =11) or other adverse events (114 vs 151) significantly increase with intensive management.

INTERPRETATION

The trial shows that intensive management incorporating psychosocial support delivered by specially trained healthcare professions is effective in moderately active established RA. More patients achieve remissions, there were greater improvements in fatigue, and there were no more harms.

[MTX intolerance in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis]

Methotrexate (MTX) is the medication most commonly used for antirheumatic treatment in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. It has high efficacy, is usually well tolerated and has an excellent safety profile. However, intolerance symptoms frequently develop, which manifest as nausea, feelings of disgust, or abdominal complaints prior to or directly after application of the medication. A direct side effect can usually be easily excluded; however, the symptoms are limited to treatment with MTX. This MTX intolerance causes a significant reduction in the quality of life of affected patients, frequently puts the treating physician in an uncomfortable situation, and not uncommonly results in discontinuation of treatment. Conventional countermeasures such as antiemetics, change of route from subcutaneous to oral or vice versa, or, for example, taste masking, usually have only limited effect. Newer behavioral treatment strategies raise hopes of more effective symptom control.

Efficacy of golimumab in Belgian patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: sub-analysis of the GO-MORE study

OBJECTIVES

The GO-MORE trial (NCT00975130) was a phase 3 study in 40 countries evaluating the efficacy and safety of golimumab as add-on therapy in biologic-naïve adults with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. To inform local practice in Belgium and examine the role of baseline disease activity in treatment response, we compared the efficacy of golimumab in the Belgian subpopulation and the rest of the world.

METHODS

Baseline disease activity and six-month efficacy rates in the GO-MORE trial were compared for the Belgian subpopulation and the rest of the world by t-tests and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Except for functional impairment, all measures of baseline disease activity were significantly lower (p < 0.0001) in the Belgian population (n = 123) than in the rest of the world (n = 3157). At month six, the rate of good/moderate EULAR response was similar in Belgium and the rest of the world (78.9% vs. 82.2%; p = 0.34), but remission rates were higher in Belgium according to the DAS28-ESR (43.1% vs. 23.2%; p < 0.0001) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (22.0% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.01). Rates of low DAS28-ESR disease activity were also higher in Belgium (54.5% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.0001). Within the Belgian subpopulation, efficacy measures were not significantly different between patients with moderate (n = 73) and high baseline activity (n = 49). Rates of functional impairment at month six did not differ between the two populations.

CONCLUSION

In the Belgian population of the GO-MORE trial, baseline disease activity was lower and six-month remission rates were higher than in the rest of the world.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology for the management of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who cannot be treated with methotrexate

To establish a set of recommendations for the management of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who cannot be treated with methotrexate (MTX) due to contraindications, drug toxicity or lack of adherence, and to establish therapeutic strategies more effective and safer in these RA patients. A qualitative analysis of the scientific evidence available to June 2015. The 2-round Delphi technique of consensus was used to collect and establish expert opinion based on the participants' clinical experience when only low quality evidence was available. A total of eighteen recommendations were developed for the management of this patient profile. Fourteen of these recommendations were related to drug safety aspects. Recommendations on contraindication and toxicity of MTX have been updated. The experts recommend the use of biological monotherapy, a preferred treatment option, in patients whose profiles reveal a contraindication, intolerance or circumstances that prevent us against the use of MTX. There is some high-quality scientific evidence that supports contraindication and establishes certain conditions of MTX use in RA patients with specific clinical profiles.

Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs after Discontinuation of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the response between subsequent use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) with other mechanism of action (MOA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with history of anti-TNF treatment as their first bDMARD.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted at eight community-based rheumatology practices in the United States in 2012. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) response was measured by comparing baseline and 6-month scores. Poor response was defined as decrease <1.8 points, follow-up score >12, or treatment discontinuation before 6 months. Percentages of patients with good and good or moderate RAPID3 response were compared for second and third biologics. Multivariate models controlled for potential confounders.

Results

Of 176 patients whose charts were abstracted, 122 (69.3%) received another anti-TNF agent after they discontinued their first anti-TNF. RAPID3 scores were available for 160 patients. A patient receiving a second bDMARD with another MOA had a higher good or moderate response than a patient receiving anti-TNF (53.5 vs. 30.7%, p = 0.01). In the multivariate models, treatment with another MOA was more likely to produce a good RAPID3 response [odds ratio (OR), 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05–5.58] or a good or moderate response (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23–3.97) than treatment with an anti-TNF.

Conclusion

In patients who have discontinued anti-TNF agents as their first bDMARD, RAPID3 response rates are better for those receiving agents with a different MOA rather than another anti-TNF. Physicians should consider using a bDMARD with a different MOA as the next bDMARD for RA patients whose anti-TNF agent has failed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40744-014-0002-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.