Peripheral neuropathy in patients on leflunomide

Painful Small Fiber Neuropathy Associated With Teriflunomide: A Case Series and Literature Review Related to Teriflunomide and Leflunomide

Teriflunomide and its prodrug, leflunomide, are disease-modifying medications used to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), respectively. Peripheral neuropathy is a rare side effect associated with both medications, although the incidence rate and exact pathological mechanism remain unknown. We present a retrospective case series of three patients with RRMS, who developed painful small fiber neuropathy at various timeframes (<6 months, one year, and four years, respectively) while on teriflunomide treatment (14 mg/day); we also engage in a literature review of small and large fiber neuropathy associated with teriflunomide and leflunomide use. All three patients developed small fiber neuropathy following teriflunomide exposure. Laboratory workup was negative for metabolic, infectious, vitamin deficiency-related, and autoimmune etiologies, except for one patient who had chronic metabolic syndromes (impaired glucose, hyperlipidemia) before medication intake. However, the patient developed neuropathy following teriflunomide treatment. Electrophysiological findings were negative for large fiber neuropathy in all three patients with positive skin biopsy, with reduced epidermal nerve fiber density (ENFD) in two of the three patients. Teriflunomide was discontinued in all cases, after which symptoms stabilized. Current literature on leflunomide supports a direct neurotoxic effect or buildup of toxic intermediates from uridine synthesis inhibition. Cessation of teriflunomide use in the described cases resulted in symptom stabilization. Early recognition and treatment may lead to good clinical outcomes in these patients.

High-resolution ultrasound of peripheral neuropathies in rheumatological patients: An overview of clinical applications and imaging findings

Peripheral neuropathies are surprisingly common and can be associated with a number of conditions, including rheumatological diseases. Whether the co-existence of peripheral neuropathies with rheumatological disorders is coincidental or related to a common pathogenic mechanism, these disabling conditions can affect the outcome of rheumatological patients and should be targeted with specific treatment. The clinical presentation of peripheral neuropathy can be multifaceted and difficult to recognize in polysymptomatic patients. However, physicians adopting state-of-art diagnostic strategies, including nerve imaging, may improve the detection rate and management of neuropathies. In particular, a diagnostic approach relying exclusively on clinical history and nerve conduction studies may not be sufficient to disclose the etiology of the nerve damage and its anatomical location and thus requires integration with morphological studies. High-Resolution Ultrasound (HRUS) is increasingly adopted to support the diagnosis and follow-up of both joint disorders in rheumatology and peripheral neuropathies of different etiologies. In this review, the different types of nerve disorders associated with the most common syndromes of rheumatological interest are discussed, focusing on the distinctive sonographic features.

Drug-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Narrative Review

Background

Peripheral neuropathy is a painful condition deriving from many and varied etiologies. Certain medications have been implicated in the iatrogenic development of Drug Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (DIPN) and include chemotherapeutic agents, antimicrobials, cardiovascular drugs, psychotropic, anticonvulsants, among others. This review synthesizes current clinical concepts regarding the mechanism, common inciting medications, and treatment options for drug-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Methods

The authors undertook a structured search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed research literature using a focused review question and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The most relevant and up to date research was included.

Results

Drug-induced peripheral neuropathy is a common and painful condition caused by many different and frequently prescribed medications. Most often, DIPN is seen in chemotherapeutic agents, antimicrobials, cardiovascular drugs, psychotropic, and anticonvulsant drugs. Certain drugs exhibit more consistent neuropathic side effects, such as the chemotherapeutic compounds, but others are more commonly prescribed by a larger proportion of providers, such as the statins. DIPN is more likely to occur in patients with concomitant risk factors such as preexisting neuropathy, diabetes, and associated genetically predisposing diseases. DIPN is often difficult to treat, however medications including duloxetine, and gabapentin are shown to reduce neuropathic pain. Advanced techniques of neuromodulation offer promise though further randomized and controlled studies are needed to confirm efficacy.

Conclusion

Awareness of the drugs covered in this review and their potential for adverse neuropathic effect is important for providers caring for patients who report new onset symptoms of pain, paresthesia, or weakness. Prevention of DIPN is especially important because treatment often proves challenging. While many pharmacologic therapies have demonstrated analgesic potential in the pain caused by DIPN, many patients remain refractive to treatment. More studies are needed to elucidate the effectiveness of interventional, neuromodulating therapies.

The role of Chinese herbal medicine in the management of adverse drug reactions of leflunomide in treating rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The high discontinuation rate in RA patients who use LEF might be attributed to their intolerance rather than irresponsibility. The concomitant administration of Leflunomide (LEF) with Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) provides a potential solution to preventing the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) induced by LEF during the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

PURPOSE

To investigate whether co-administration of LEF with CHM could bring in both increased therapeutic outcomes and reduced ADRs due to the framework of treatment at the level of entire body.

STUDY DESIGN

The mechanism of LEF in RA treatment and the ADRs it induced was introduced based on recent papers. Reported clinical examples of CHM concurrent use with LEF was revealed to provide more evidence. The management of the ADRs caused by LEF was suggested by current researches on the concomitant therapy of CHM with LEF.

RESULTS

The active ingredients, compounds and medicinal herbs all demonstrated properties in relieving toxicities and reducing ADRs when used with LEF and reported in several clinical cases. The wide application of concurrent use of CHM with LEF is however hindered by the complex pathogenesis of RA which requires further scientific grounds for diagnosis and treatment.

CONCLUSION

This review introduced that the adoption of CHM is emerging as a novel strategy for the management of ADRs caused by LEF.

Treatment of Sarcoidosis

Treatment of sarcoidosis is not required in all patients with the diagnosis. The decision to treat and the strategy for how to treat usually require input and shared decision making by the patient. Some common consequences of sarcoidosis are not caused by granulomatous inflammation, but may be the dominant disease manifestation and should be actively considered when formulating a treatment plan. The medication regimen should be tailored to each patient. Steroid-sparing medications should be prescribed early as part of a long-term strategy.

Monitoring of nonsteroidal immunosuppressive drugs in patients with lung disease and lung transplant recipients: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Immunosuppressive pharmacologic agents prescribed to patients with diffuse interstitial and inflammatory lung disease and lung transplant recipients are associated with potential risks for adverse reactions. Strategies for minimizing such risks include administering these drugs according to established, safe protocols; monitoring to detect manifestations of toxicity; and patient education. Hence, an evidence-based guideline for physicians can improve safety and optimize the likelihood of a successful outcome. To maximize the likelihood that these agents will be used safely, the American College of Chest Physicians established a committee to examine the clinical evidence for the administration and monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs (with the exception of corticosteroids) to identify associated toxicities associated with each drug and appropriate protocols for monitoring these agents.

METHODS

Committee members developed and refined a series of questions about toxicities of immunosuppressives and current approaches to administration and monitoring. A systematic review was carried out by the American College of Chest Physicians. Committee members were supplied with this information and created this evidence-based guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that these guidelines will improve patient safety when immunosuppressive drugs are given to lung transplant recipients and to patients with diffuse interstitial lung disease.

Leflunomide: friend or foe for systemic lupus erythematosus?

Leflunomide is a new immunosuppressive medicine that has been effectively used in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis and subsequently used with success in animal models and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, its use has also been associated with significant and serious adverse reactions involving hematological, hepatic, immune, dermatological and respiratory systems. In the current review, we attempt to describe the two sides of this drug in the treatment of SLE.

Beyond the joints: neurological involvement in rheumatoid arthritis

Although arthritis is the most notable component, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disorder where extra-articular manifestations are common; among them, central and peripheral nervous system involvement is frequent and associated with significant morbidity and, in some cases, reduced life span. It may produce a myriad of symptoms and signs ranging from subtle numbness in a hand, to quadriparesis and sudden death. Central and peripheral neurologic manifestations may arise from structural damage produced by RA in diarthroidal joints, by the systemic inflammatory process of the disease itself or by the drugs used to treat it. Neurologic syndromes may appear suddenly or developed slowly through months, and emerge early or after years of having RA. Neurologic manifestations may be easily overlooked or incorrectly assigned to peripheral arthritis unless the attending physician is aware of these complications. In this article, we review neurologic involvement in RA patients with emphasis on clinical approach for early detection.

Toxicity and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapy used in systemic autoimmune diseases

Systemic autoimmune diseases may be progressive and lead to organ system dysfunction and premature death. Current treatment paradigms are usually predominantly based on the administration of immunosuppressive and/or immunomodulatory drug therapy. Such therapy can stabilize systemic manifestations of connective tissue disease (CTD) and may put the disease into remission, and many of these agents are commonly used to treat CTD-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD). Although these agents have largely revolutionized the treatment of the systemic autoimmune diseases, adverse reactions, which can be serious and life threatening, to the various immunosuppressive agents used in the treatment of CTD can occur. Treating physicians must be aware of mechanisms of action of various immunosuppressive agents and be able to recognize the potential adverse reactions that may occur with therapy as well as potentially harmful effects on fetal development. Appropriate monitoring may prevent or limit toxicity from these agents, and knowledge of drug-drug interactions is essential when these agents are prescribed.

Reappraisal of the clinical use of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis

Leflunomide is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) that has been in routine clinical use for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis for a decade. In RA, clinical trials of up to two years' duration showed that leflunomide monotherapy was equivalent to methotrexate in clinical and radiographic disease outcomes (tender and swollen joint counts, physician and patient global assessments, American College of Rheumatology and Disease Activity Score responses, slowing or halting of radiographic progression). In a number of studies, quality of life measurements indicated that leflunomide is superior to methotrexate. Leflunomide has been studied in combination with methotrexate and shows efficacy in patients only partly responsive to this agent. Recent trials have shown that leflunomide can be used safely with biologic DMARDs, including antitumor necrosis factor agents and rituximab as part of the treatment algorithm in place of methotrexate as a cotherapy. Leflunomide has demonstrated efficacy as a monotherapy in psoriatic arthritis, and it also has a beneficial effect in psoriasis. Postmarketing studies have shown that retention on treatment with leflunomide is equal to methotrexate and superior to other DMARDs. In general, its side effect profile is acceptable compared with other DMARDS, with nausea, diarrhea, and hair fall occurring commonly, but only rarely leading to discontinuation. Liver toxicity is the most significant problem in clinical use although it is uncommon. Peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, pneumonitis, and cytopenia occur more rarely. Leflunomide is contraindicated in pregnancy and should be used with caution in women during child-bearing years. In this review, the place of leflunomide in therapy is discussed and practical advice informed by evidence is given regarding dosing regimens, safety monitoring, and managing side effects. Leflunomide remains one of the most useful of the nonbiologic DMARDs.

Leflunomide in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic and highly morbid disease affecting approximately 1% of the world's population. With the advent of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, patients are increasingly able to maintain control of their arthritis and prevent joint destruction. However, not all patients respond adequately to any single disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, and many newer parenteral therapies are cost prohibitive. Leflunomide, an inhibitor of pyrimidine biosynthesis, is the first oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drug to have been approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the USA in the last 15 years, and is now widely used in over 70 countries around the world. Leflunomide is efficacious when used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and is generally well tolerated. As clinical use increases, new ways to use leflunomide in order to minimize toxicity and maximize efficacy are being explored.

Update on medication-induced peripheral neuropathy

Despite improvements in the identification of causes of peripheral neuropathy, idiopathic polyneuropathy remains common. Medication and toxic neuropathy account for a small but important percentage of potentially preventable or reversible causes of neuropathy. New drugs that can induce neuropathy have been approved over the past several years, including the anticancer agents bortezomib, ixabepilone, and oxaliplatin. We review the neurotoxic effects of tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockers infliximab and etanercept, the inflammatory arthritis agent leflunomide, and the antibiotic linezolid. The controversy of statin-induced neuropathy continues to unfold; the large Fremantle Diabetes Study has suggested that statins may have neuroprotective effects. Dichloroacetate is a promising agent for lactic acidosis-associated disorders, but toxic neuropathy is a treatment-limiting factor. We also describe a progressive inflammatory neuropathy in swine slaughterhouse workers that appears to be a toxin-induced immune response.

Peripheral neuropathy associated with leflunomide: is there a risk patient profile?

PURPOSE

(i) To monitor the potential clinical neurotoxic symptoms in patients treated with leflunomide in daily practice and (ii) to describe the characteristics of patients presenting with this peripheral nervous system symptoms.

METHOD

All patients treated with leflunomide between May 2000 and April 2003 and followed in the rheumatology department of the University Hospital participated in the study. Data concerning treatment patterns with leflunomide, demographic and disease characteristics were obtained from clinical charts. Neuropathy was diagnosed with nerve conduction study (NCS). Cases of neuropathy were described and then compared to other patients using univariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen patients were included in the study. M/F sex ratio was 0.45. Mean age at start of treatment was 55.6 years (range = 27-81). During the study period, eight incident cases of peripheral neuropathy and two cases of worsening of preexisting neuropathy were reported (incidence: 9.8%). Compared with other patients, neuropathy cases were older (69 vs. 54 years, p = 0.0006), more often diabetic (30% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.009) and more often treated with potentially neurotoxic drugs (20% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.039). At least one risk factor (potentially neurotoxic drug or diabetes) was found in 50% of patients with neuropathy versus 4% of patients without neuropathy (56% PPV, 96% NPV).

CONCLUSION

Cases of toxic neuropathy have been observed during treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide. Their occurrence seems to be associated with known risk factors. Careful monitoring of the patient's neurological status during leflunomide treatment is therefore mandatory.

The active form of leflunomide, HMR1726, facilitates TNF-alpha and IL-17 induced MMP-1 and MMP-3 expression

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To elucidate the influence and mode of action of HMR1726 (the active metabolite of leflunomide) on TNF-alpha and IL-17 activated metalloproteinases expression in synoviocytes.

METHODS

Synovial fibroblasts from RA and OA patients were stimulated with both cytokines and altered gene expression in the presence or absence of leflunomide was detected by microarray analyses and quantitative RT-PCR. Protein expression was detected by western blotting and commercial ELISAs.

RESULTS

Microarray analyses revealed that the addition of HMR1726 (50 microM) to TNF-alpha and IL-17- stimulated synoviocytes induced gene expression of metallo-proteinases, especially MMP-1 and -3 in comparison to activated synoviocytes in the absence of leflunomide. To confirm these data, we examined the influence of different concentrations of HMR1726 in synoviocytes from further 5 OA and 7 RA patients by quantitative PCR. HMR1726 gradually induced MMP-1 and MMP-3 gene expression in a dose-dosedependent manner. Similar results were observed on protein levels. Examination of signal transduction pathways participating in the regulation of leflunomideinduced MMPs expression showed that the mechanism underlying activation of MMP-1 is in part p38- and activation of MMP-3 was MEK1/2- dependent.

CONCLUSION

Leflunomide was not able to abolish expression of metallo-proteinases in synoviocytes activated with TNF-a and IL-17.