Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on March 14, 2006
Rheumatology 2006 45(5):497-499; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel014
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/5/497    most recent
kel014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pincus, T.
Right arrow Articles by Sokka, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pincus, T.
Right arrow Articles by Sokka, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Rheumatoid Arthritis
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

EDITORIAL

Should aggressive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis require early use of weekly low-dose methotrexate, as the first disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug in most patients?

T. Pincus1 and T. Sokka1,2

1 Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA and 2 Jyvaskyla Central Hospital, Jyvaskyla, Finland

Correspondence to: T. Pincus, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 203 Oxford House, Box 5, Nashville, TN 37232–4500, USA. E-mail: t.pincus{at}vanderbilt.edu

Therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has evolved substantially over the last two decades. During the 1980s it was recognized that most patients experienced poor outcomes over 10–20 yr, including radiographic progression [1], severe functional declines [2, 3], work disability [2, 4] and premature mortality [2]. During the 1990s, calls for an aggressive strategy [5–10], led to the introduction of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in early RA, particularly weekly low-dose methotrexate [11, 12], often in combination [10, 13], to prevent long-term damage. Weekly low-dose methotrexate had greater efficacy [11, 12], lower toxicity [14, 15] and considerably greater long-term continuation than previously available DMARDs [16]. During the first years of the present century, evidence of reduced mortality outcomes [17, 18] and considerably better clinical status compared with previous decades [17–21] reflect the effectiveness of methotrexate. Introduction of targeted biological therapies further enhances the armamentarium of rheumatologists to implement aggressive treatment strategies [22, 23].

Clinical trials in patients with early RA with combination DMARDs [24–26] and with biological agents [27] indicate the value of aggressive therapy in early RA. However, formal clinical trials have not been conducted to determine whether similar advantages to aggressive therapy might be seen in patients with long-standing disease.

In this issue of Rheumatology, Symmons and colleagues address the absence of formal clinical trial data concerning aggressive treatment of patients with stable RA of 5 yr or longer. They report a well-designed clinical trial by the British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group (BROSG), to compare ‘intensified’/hospital treatment, with ‘the aim of suppressing the inflammatory process completely’, versus symptom control/shared care using standard DMARD therapy, over 5 yr in five UK rheumatology centres [28]. The primary outcome measure was the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score, admirably chosen in recognition that disease activity measures, such as the number of swollen and tender joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) may improve over 5–10 yr, while measures of joint damage, radiographic scores and HAQ scores indicate disease progression [1, 2, 29–32]. The intensified arm included visits every 4 months with a goal of reducing the CRP to twice the normal value.

The results indicated that HAQ scores worsened similarly in both groups over 36 months, suggesting that the intensified treatment protocol in this study did not provide superior results to standard care. These observations may initially appear discouraging to rheumatologists who believe that ‘tight control’ will improve outcomes in patients with long-standing RA, particularly to strict adherents to a view that optimum ‘evidence-based medicine’ [33] is invariably derived from clinical trials rather than observational studies. However, the authors themselves offer five possible explanations for the observed absence of differences between the two groups [28]:

  1. patients in the intensified group did not have indications for treatment changes;
  2. treatment changes were indicated, and physicians did not act or patients refused;
  3. patients in the intensified group did have evidence of disease activity, but there was no resultant improvement;
  4. patients in the intensified group had evidence of disease activity, treatment change and their condition improved, but there was no effect on outcome;
  5. patients in the standard therapy group had their treatment changed as often as the patients in the intensified group [28].

They reject the first three explanations, as patients in the intensified group did have indications for treatment changes, physicians did act and there was resultant improvement. Nonetheless, support appears for the fourth and fifth possible explanations. Improvement was seen in disease activity and symptom control in 90% of patients in the intensified group, but HAQ scores indicated progression of disability [28]. Furthermore, there is some evidence that patients in the standard care group had their treatment changed ‘more often than might have been anticipated’, i.e. 56% of patients, albeit fewer than the 90% in the intensified treatment group [28].

These findings suggest ‘contamination of the control’, as patients and physicians participating in a clinical trial involving an intensified therapy might have determined that ‘standard therapy’ might be more ‘intensified’. Indeed, symptom control in the standard therapy group was 64%, only 6% less than seen in the intensified group. In addition, ‘non-compliance’ was noted in 8% of patients in the intensified group, including 50% characterized by ‘no reason’, 25% by refusal of the patient and 25% by the consultant regarding change as unnecessary, which may have attenuated possible differences between the intensified and standard therapies.

Although the type of ‘intensified’ care delivered in this trial did not appear to provide significant benefit for patients with established RA of 5 yr or longer compared with ‘standard’ care, many rheumatologists would not necessarily regard the ‘intensified’ appeared as sufficiently aggressive. Adjustments of therapy were made every 4 months in the ‘intensified’ group, compared with monthly adjustments in the TICORA clinical trial toward complete control of inflammation [26]. Furthermore, only 38% of patients in the ‘intensified’ group took methotrexate and 22% combination therapy [28], figures considerably lower than seen in seven US rheumatology private practices even in 1992 [16], and even much lower than in recent series [21, 34].

Three important lessons from the BROSG clinical trial may be recognized:

  1. This clinical trial adds further evidence to the literature suggesting that partial control of disease activity does not prevent long-term damage in RA [1, 2, 29–32]. Improvement, albeit modest, was seen in the number of swollen joints, tender joints, ESR and composite disease activity scores (DAS). The authors rated 49% of patients in the intensified arm as ‘treatment success’, including 70% with symptom control, 67% with CRP less than twice upper limit of normal, 70% with no actively inflamed joints and 31% as good or moderate responders according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria [28]. HAQ scores worsened similarly to the standard care group.
  2. The BROSG trial may present a further example in which longitudinal observational data from clinical studies [17–21] may sometimes provide more accurate information than a clinical trial [35, 36]. Although the clinical trial represents the optimal method for analysing an experimental versus a control group, many limitations are seen in clinical trials [35–37]. As illustrated in this study, the design of a clinical trial can greatly influence results, as the outcome might have differed if the ‘intensified’ group had included more aggressive treatment. Furthermore, the existence of a control group does not assure that a question will be answered definitively.
    A number of recent observational reports indicate improved status of patients with established RA using aggressive therapies [17–21], although the possible contribution of RA becoming a milder disease cannot be excluded from these findings [21].The results also illustrate a further methodological issue that often is overlooked—that statistically significant observations are not necessarily clinically significant. For example, patients in the intensified arm were statistically significantly more likely than patients in standard care to begin methotrexate therapy (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.11, 3.37) or receive combination therapy (odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.13, 3.91). However, these odds ratios are based on an increase of patients who took methotrexate in the ‘intensified arm’ from 21% at baseline to 38%, and combination therapy increases from 7 to 22% [28], considerably fewer than even in 1992 [16], and as noted above in 2000 [21, 34]. Therefore, the statistically significant odds ratios do not recognize that relatively few patients in the ‘intensified’ group were taking neither methotrexate nor combination therapy. Many reports in the rheumatology literature present statistically significant information which is not clinically significant.
  3. Perhaps the most important lesson of this trial is that it appears unlikely at this time to achieve the authors’ ‘aim of suppressing the inflammatory process completely’ [28] without most patients having an opportunity to be treated with methotrexate. The algorithm used in this study considered DMARDs in three categories: category 1, sulphasalazine and antimalarials; category 2, intramuscular gold and methotrexate; and category 3, penicillamine, azathioprine and leflunomide. Although this classification is traditional, several observers, including the authors, have suggested that methotrexate should be regarded in a different category from other DMARDs, as it has greater efficacy, effectiveness, safety and tolerability than any of the other DMARDs by a wide margin [38, 39]. Even in 1992, the likelihood of continuation of methotrexate over 5 yr was 50% compared with 20% for injectable gold, penicillamine, hydroxychloroquine or azathioprine, and a recent series indicated continuation of methotrexate by 80% of patients after 5 yr [15]. The effectiveness of widespread use of methotrexate has been documented with improved mortality outcomes [17, 18], and considerably better clinical status of consecutive patients seen in 2000 compared with 1985, with fewer than half the number of swollen joints, as well as modified health assessment questionnaire (MHAQ) and quantitative radiographic scores, compared with 15 yr earlier [21].

Nonetheless, weekly low-dose methotrexate continues to be regarded by many general physicians as associated with toxicities similar to those of daily high-dose methotrexate. However, weekly low-dose methotrexate appears primarily an anti-inflammatory rather than an immunosuppressive agent [40], and low white blood cell counts and high liver enzymes are unusual, despite allowing patients up to two alcoholic beverages per day [15]. To be sure, 20% of patients discontinued methotrexate over 5 yr, and many patients report mild toxicities, ranging from hair loss, gastrointestinal distress and central nervous system problems. However, the authors are not aware of any therapy for any rheumatic disease that is continued by 80% of patients after 5 yr (other than low-dose prednisone, for which the toxicities also are often confused with high-dose prednisone [41]). Therefore, the efficacy, effectiveness, safety, tolerability and benefit/risk of methotrexate may be among the most favourable available for any drug for any chronic disease at this time.

We conclude that this BSORG clinical trial does further confirm that incomplete control of inflammation does not prevent long-term damage in patients with RA. We are not convinced, however, that the strategies used in this trial ‘with the aim of suppressing the inflammatory process completely in patients with long established RA’ necessarily would meet that objective, and suggest that evidence from observational studies might be used to develop a more effective intensified programme. Although many might suggest that anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF{alpha}) therapies are required for optimal control of inflammation in all patients, it is well to remember that FIN-RACo, COBRA and TICORA, which did not include anti-TNF{alpha} therapy, showed better results than many studies involving biological therapies by including early patients, and anti-TNF{alpha} therapy invariably led to better results with the addition of methotrexate. We suggest that methotrexate should serve as the ‘anchor drug’ [14] for patients with RA, to be used early in almost all patients as the first DMARD and required in any protocol designed to provide aggressive therapy.

Supported in part by grants from the Arthritis Foundation, the Jack C. Massey Foundation.

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Scott DL, Grindulis KA, Struthers GR, Coulton BL, Popert AJ, Bacon PA. Progression of radiological changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1984;43:8–17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Pincus T, Callahan LF, Sale WG, Brooks AL, Payne LE, Vaughn WK. Severe functional declines, work disability, and increased mortality in seventy-five rheumatoid arthritis patients studied over nine years. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:864–72.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Wolfe F, Cathey MA. The assessment and prediction of functional disability in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1991;18:1298–306.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Yelin E, Meenan R, Nevitt M, Epstein W. Work disability in rheumatoid arthritis: effects of disease, social, and work factors. Ann Intern Med 1980;93:551–6.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Weinblatt ME. Rheumatoid arthritis: treat now, not later!. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:773–4.[Free Full Text]
  6. Emery P, Salmon M. Early rheumatoid arthritis: time to aim for remission? Ann Rheum Dis 1995;54:944–7.
  7. Pincus T. Rheumatoid arthritis: a medical emergency? Scand J Rheumatol 1994;23(Suppl. 100):21–30.
  8. Pincus T, Callahan LF. The ‘side effects’ of rheumatoid arthritis: joint destruction, disability and early mortality. Br J Rheumatol 1993;32(Suppl. 1):28–37.
  9. O’Dell JR. Treating rheumatoid arthritis early: a window of opportunity? Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:283–5.
  10. Pincus T, O’Dell JR, Kremer JM. Combination therapy with multiple disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a preventive strategy. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:768–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hoffmeister RT. Methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: 15 years experience. Am J Med 1983;75(Suppl. 6A):69–73.
  12. Weinblatt ME, Coblyn JS, Fox DA et al. Efficacy of low-dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 1985;312:818–22.[Abstract]
  13. O’Dell JR, Haire CE, Erikson N et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of all three medications. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1287–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Pincus T, Yazici Y, Sokka T, Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Methotrexate as the "anchor drug" for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2003;21: S179–S185.[Medline]
  15. Yazici Y, Sokka T, Kautiainen H, Swearingen C, Kulman I, Pincus T. Long term safety of methotrexate in routine clinical care: discontinuation is unusual and rarely the result of laboratory abnormalities. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:207–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Pincus T, Marcum SB, Callahan LF. Long-term drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in seven rheumatology private practices: II. Second-line drugs and prednisone. J Rheumatol 1992;19:1885–94.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Krause D, Schleusser B, Herborn G, Rau R. Response to methotrexate treatment is associated with reduced mortality in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:14–21.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  18. Choi HK, Hernán MA, Seeger JD, Robins JM, Wolfe F. Methotrexate and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study. Lancet 2002;359:1173–7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  19. Krishnan E, Fries JF. Reduction in long-term functional disability in rheumatoid arthritis from 1977 to 1998: a longitudinal study of 3035 patients. Am J Med 2003;115:371–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Sokka T, Kautiainen H, Häkkinen K, Hannonen P. Radiographic progression is getting milder in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Results of 3 cohorts over 5 years. J Rheumatol 2004;31:1073–82.[Medline]
  21. Pincus T, Sokka T, Kautiainen H. Patients seen for standard rheumatoid arthritis care have significantly better articular, radiographic, laboratory, and functional status in 2000 than in 1985. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1009–19.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  22. Kavanaugh A, van Vollenhoven RF, Pincus T (guest eds). Benefit/risk of new drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004;22(Suppl. 35):S1–S150.
  23. Olsen NJ, Stein CM. New drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2167–79.[Free Full Text]
  24. Möttönen T, Hannonen P, Leirisalo-Repo M et al. Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial. FIN-RACo trial group. Lancet 1999;353:1568–73.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  25. Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Markusse HM et al. Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 1997;350:309–18.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  26. Grigor C, Capell H, Stirling A et al. Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:263–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  27. Vries-Bouwstra JK, Dijkmans BA, Breedveld FC. Biologics in early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2005;31:745–62.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  28. Symmons D, Tricker K, Harrison M et al. Patients with stable long-standing rheumatoid arthritis continue to deteriorate despite intensified treatment with traditional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs—results of the British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group randomized controlled clinical trial. Rheumatology 2005 (in press).
  29. Mulherin D, Fitzgerald O, Bresnihan B. Clinical improvement and radiological deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis: evidence that pathogenesis of synovial inflammation and articular erosion may differ. Br J Rheumatol 1996;35:1263–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Callahan LF, Pincus T, Huston JW III, Brooks RH, Nance EP Jr, Kaye JJ. Measures of activity and damage in rheumatoid arthritis: depiction of changes and prediction of mortality over five years. Arthritis Care Res 1997;10:381–94.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Welsing PMJ, van Gestel AM, Swinkels HL, Kiemeney LALM, van Riel PLCM. The relationship between disease activity, joint destruction, and functional capacity over the course of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:2009–17.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Pincus T, Sokka T. Partial control of Core Data Set measures and Disease Activity Score (DAS) measures of inflammation does not prevent long-term damage: evidence from longitudinal observations over 5–20 years. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2002;20: S42–S48.[Medline]
  33. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. Br Med J 1996;312:71–2.[Free Full Text]
  34. Sokka T, Pincus T. Contemporary disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis in a US private practice: methotrexate as the anchor drug in 90% and new DMARD in 30% of patients. J Rheumatol 2002;29:2521–4.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Pincus T. Rheumatoid arthritis: disappointing long-term outcomes despite successful short-term clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:1037–41.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  36. Pincus T, Stein CM. Why randomized controlled clinical trials do not depict accurately long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: some explanations and suggestions for future studies. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1997;15(Suppl. 17): S27–S38.
  37. Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:544–50.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Pincus T. Guidelines for monitoring of methotrexate therapy: ‘evidence-based medicine’ outside of clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:2706–9.[Medline]
  39. Pincus T, Sokka T. Rheumatoid arthritis. In: Rakel RE, Bope ET, eds. Conn's Current Therapy 2004. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company, 2004:1021–8.
  40. Cronstein BN. Molecular therapeutics: methotrexate and its mechanism of action. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:1951–60.[Medline]
  41. Pincus T, Sokka T, Stein CM. Are long-term very low doses of prednisone for patients with rheumatoid arthritis as helpful as high doses are harmful? Ann Intern Med 1996;136:76–8.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/5/497    most recent
kel014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pincus, T.
Right arrow Articles by Sokka, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pincus, T.
Right arrow Articles by Sokka, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Rheumatoid Arthritis
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?