Dataset Information

Intra-articular therapy with methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Persistent monoarthritis in otherwise well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis presents a therapeutic challenge. Intra-articular (IA) steroids are a mainstay of treatment, though some have queried whether IA disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) and biologics can be used in those who fail steroid injections.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using four medical databases to identify randomized, controlled trials assessing IA therapies in RA patients. Included studies underwent Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment for quality.

Results

Twelve studies were included, 6 of which examined intra-articular (IA) TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and 6 studies evaluating IA methotrexate. Of those evaluating IA TNFi, one study reported statistical improvement in TNFi therapy when compared with placebo. The remaining 5 studies compared IA TNFi therapy with steroid injections. IA TNFi had statistically improved symptom scores and clinical assessments comparable with IA steroid treatments. In the 6 studies evaluating IA methotrexate, the addition of methotrexate to steroid intra-articular therapy was not found to be beneficial, and singular methotrexate injection was not superior to the control arms (saline or triamcinolone). Risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment with the Revised Cochrane ROB tool indicated that 2 of 6 TNFi studies were at some risk or high risk for bias, compared with 5 out of 6 methotrexate studies.

Conclusion

For persistent monoarthritis in rheumatoid arthritis, IA methotrexate was not found to have clinical utility. Intra-articular TNFi therapy appears to have equal efficacy to IA steroids, though the optimal dose and frequency of injections is yet unknown.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8444402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionControlled clinical studies have shown that the efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy is superior to that of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) monotherapy and comparable to that of TCZ plus methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study compared the real-world effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy vs. TNFis plus MTX in US patients with RA.MethodsTCZ-naïve patients from the Corrona RA registry with prior exposure to ≥ 1 TNFi who initiated TCZ monotherapy or TNFi + MTX were included. Outcomes included mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10), achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50 responses, and mean change in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) at 6 months. Patients initiating TNFi + MTX were grouped by MTX dose (≤ 10 mg; > 10 to ≤ 15 mg; > 15 to ≤ 20 mg; > 20 mg); outcomes in each group were compared with TCZ monotherapy using trimmed populations (excluding patients outside the propensity score distribution overlap).ResultsPatients in all groups experienced improvement in CDAI at 6 months (mean change, - 6.9 to - 9.7), with no significant differences between the TCZ monotherapy and TNFi + MTX groups. Achievement of LDA and mACR responses at 6 months were comparable between the TCZ monotherapy and TNFi + MTX groups; overall, 26.8-38.0% of patients achieved LDA, 24.3-37.6% achieved mACR20 response and 13.2-20.8% achieved mACR50 response. The mean change in mHAQ at 6 months was - 0.1 in all groups.ConclusionsIn this real-world population of US patients with RA who had prior TNFi exposure, there was no evidence of a difference in the effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy compared with that of TNFi + MTX, regardless of MTX dose, at 6 months for improving RA disease activity.FundingCorrona, LLC. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:A physiologically based model describing the dissolution, diffusion, and transfer of drug from the intra-articular (IA) space to the plasma, was developed for GastroPlus® v9.8. The model is subdivided into compartments representing the synovial fluid, synovium, and cartilage. The synovium is broken up into two sublayers. The intimal layer acts as a diffusion barrier between the synovial fluid and the subintimal layer. The subintimal layer of the synovium has fenestrated capillaries that allow the free drug to be transported into systemic circulation. The articular cartilage is broken up into 10 diffusion sublayers as it is much thicker than the synovium. The cartilage acts as a depot tissue for the drug to diffuse into from synovial fluid. At later times, the drug will diffuse from the cartilage back into synovial fluid once a portion of the dose enters systemic circulation. In this study, a listing of all relevant details and equations for the model is presented. Methotrexate was chosen as a case study to show the application and utility of the model, based on the availability of intravenous (IV), oral (PO) and IA administration data in patients presenting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) symptoms. Systemic disposition of methotrexate in RA patients was described by compartmental pharmacokinetic (PK) model with PK parameters extracted using the PKPlus™ module in GastroPlus®. The systemic PK parameters were validated by simulating PO administration of methotrexate before being used for simulation of IA administration. For methotrexate, the concentrations of drug in the synovial fluid and plasma were well described after adjustments of physiological parameters to account for RA disease state, and with certain assumptions about binding and diffusion. The results indicate that the model can correctly describe PK profiles resulting from administration in the IA space, however, additional cases studies will be required to evaluate ability of the model to scale between species and/or doses.

Project description:IntroductionFor patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.MethodsWe conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.ResultsWe identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96-1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40-0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.DiscussionResults suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.Plain language summaryAssessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease in which inflammation affects joints along with the entire body; this may cause significant pain, joint damage, physical disability, a decreased quality of life, and an increased risk of death.Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are a common choice as first-line drugs to treat RA. Although they are effective in many patients, therapy with a TNFi is not successful within the first year of treatment in approximately one-third of patients due to either a lack of efficacy or safety issues.When TNFi therapy is unsuccessful, the options are to "cycle" to another TNFi or to "switch" to another drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). Further studies are needed to help doctors decide the best treatment strategy for their patients when treatment with an initial TNFi fails.This study analyzed 25 published studies in which patients were either "cycled" to another TNFi or "switched" to a drug with a different MOA after unsuccessful treatment with an initial TNFi.The results showed that "switching" to a drug with a different MOA was a better treatment strategy than "cycling" to another TNFi; "switching" increased the chance of clinically meaningful improvement in disease status and lowered the chance of having to stop treatment for any reason.

Project description:ObjectivePatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) may influence risk and mortality after ischemic stroke by reducing inflammation. This study was undertaken to examine the association of TNFi with the risk of incident ischemic stroke and with 30-day and 1-year mortality after ischemic stroke.MethodsPatients with RA starting therapy with TNFi and a biologics-naive comparator group treated with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) only were recruited to the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis from 2001 to 2009. Patients were followed up via clinical and patient questionnaires as well as the national death register. Incident strokes were classified as ischemic if brain imaging reports suggested ischemia or if ischemic stroke was reported as the underlying cause of death on a death certificate. Patients with a previous stroke were excluded. Risk of ischemic stroke was compared between patients receiving synthetic DMARDs only and those ever-exposed to TNFi using a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for potential confounders. Mortality after ischemic stroke was compared between synthetic DMARD-treated patients and TNFi-treated patients using logistic regression, adjusted for age and sex.ResultsTo April 2010, 127 verified incident ischemic strokes (21 in 3,271 synthetic DMARD-treated patients and 106 in 11,642 TNFi-treated patients) occurred during 11,973 and 61,226 person-years of observation, respectively (incidence rate 175 versus 173 per 100,000 person-years). After adjustment for confounders, there was no association between ever-exposure to TNFi and ischemic stroke (hazard ratio 0.99 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.54-1.81]). Mortality 30 days or 1 year after ischemic stroke was not associated with concurrent TNFi exposure (odds ratio 0.18 [95% CI 0.03-1.21] and 0.60 [95% CI 0.16-2.28], respectively).ConclusionExposure to TNFi does not appear to influence the occurrence of ischemic stroke in the medium term in patients with RA. The impact on mortality after ischemic stroke remains inconclusive.