A randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of leflunomide in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

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.

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.

Leflunomide for treating rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease. Leflunomide, as an inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, has a different mechanism of action than other existing disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and toxicity of leflunomide compared to placebo or other DMARDs in the treatment of RA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for trials up to December 2001. We also hand-searched reference lists and consulted content experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers selected the trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality using standardized forms.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials were included in this review. Using the ACR20 improvement criteria, there was an absolute difference in improvement of 28% (95% confidence interval: 21 - 35%) favouring leflunomide (232 out of 413 leflunomide treated patients compared to 89 out of 311 placebo patients met the criteria). There was no difference in ACR20 response rate between the patients treated with leflunomide and SSZ or MTX at 6 and 12 months. Other clinical outcomes were improved significantly in the leflunomide group compared to placebo but not different from SSZ or MTX. Withdrawals due to adverse events with leflunomide were 10% greater than placebo (70 out of 416 compared to 18 out of 311 respectively). Important adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms, elevated liver function tests, alopecia, and infections. Overall adverse events and withdrawals in the leflunomide group were not significantly different from SSZ or MTX.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Leflunomide appears to improve all clinical outcomes and delay radiologic progression at both 6 and 12 months of treatment compared to placebo. Its efficacy and adverse events at 2 years of treatment are comparable to SSZ and MTX. Long-term efficacy and toxicity remains to be established.