Leflunomide monotherapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: Results of the Russian national Arava mono study

The treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is usually started using one of the synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The choice of these drugs is very limited and leflunomide (LEF) is one of the most promising agents. The present study assessed the results of using the standard LEF regimen for patients with early RA in the everyday clinical practice of Russian health care facilities. Subjects and methods. The study enrolled the patients followed up in 20 medical centers of the Russian Federation in May 2008 to January 2010. The RA patients who met the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria, had a less than 2-year history of the disease, and had not received LEF before were included. All the patients were above 18 years of age and they signed an informed consent form. The physicians were recommended to give the drug in a dose of 100 mg/day for the first 3 days, then 20 mg/day continuously. If adverse reactions occurred, the dose might be reduced to 10 mg/day. The patients were examined before and 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks after LEF therapy. The efficiency of the treatment was evaluated by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria using DAS 28 scores, by the ACR criteria, and functional changes using HAQ scores and quality of life using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Results. The study included 484 patients with RA. Its diagnosis corresponded to the 1987 ACR criteria. There were 80 men and 404 women in this group. The patients’ mean age was 48.1±13.4 years; the mean duration of the disease at its onset was 14.1±12.8 months. A significant decrease in the number of patients with high DAS 28 scores was recorded every 12 weeks during the treatment. It reduced from 355 (73.3%) to 41 (8.5%) by the end of the observation. At the same time, there was a significant increase in the number of patients with low activity and remission every 12 weeks (p < 0.01). During the last visit, a remission was recorded in 57 (11.8%) patients and low disease activity in 59 (12.2%) patients. Twelve weeks after initiation of treatment, 210 (43.4%) patients achieved a significant improvement according to the EULAR criteria. During a subsequent follow-up, the number of patients with a considerable improvement increased statistically significantly every 12 weeks and there were 373 (77%) patients by the end of the follow-up. Efficiency evaluation showed a 20% response according to the ACR criteria in 154 (31.8%) patients after the first 12 weeks. There was a significant rise in the number of patients with a 20% ACR improvement within the first 36 weeks of the follow-up and there were 323 (66.7%) patients following 48 weeks. The number of patients with 50% and 70% ACR responses considerably increased throughout the observation (p < 0.01). After 48-week treatment, 141 (29%) and 38 (8%) patients showed 50% and 70% ACR responses, respectively. The therapy significantly improved quality of life, as estimated by EQ-5D questionnaire, and resulted in a considerable functional improvement according to HAQ scores. ARs were seen in 51 (10.5%) patients during the study. At the follow-up, LEF was discontinued in 58 patients, including 23 (4.8%) because of its inefficiency, in 9 (1.9%) due to ARs, and in 26 (5.4%) for other reasons. The efficiency of the therapy and the rate and causes of its withdrawal were comparable in the patients receiving LEF in accordance with the standard regimen using its saturating dose in the first 3 days and in those who did not take the saturating dose. Conclusion. The standard treatment regimen of LEF using its high doses in the first 3 treatment days in patients with early RA enables the inflammatory activity to be effectively inhibited and does not cause any substantial increase in the frequency of ARs.

rheumatoid arthritis, leflunomide, quality of life, adverse reactions

1. <div><p>Combe B., Landewe R., Lukas C. et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis: report of a task force of the European Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66(1):34-45.</p><p>Aletaha D., Neogi T., Silman A.J. et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(9):1580-8.</p><p>Каратеев Д.Е., Олюнин Ю.А. О классификации ревматоидного артрита. Науч-практич ревматол 2008;1:5-16.</p><p>Smolen J.S., Aletaha D., Bijlsma J.W. et al. T2T Expert Committee. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(4):631-7.</p><p>Smolen J.S., Landewe R., Breedveld F.C. et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(6):964-75.</p><p>Saag K.G., Teng G.G., Patkar N.M. et al.; American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthr Rheum 2008;59(6):762-84.</p><p>Singh J.A., Furst D.E., Bharat A. et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthr Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64(5):625-39.</p><p>Smolen J.S., Kalden J.R., Scott D.L. et al. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. European Leflunomide Study Group. Lancet 1999;353(9149):259-66.</p><p>Strand V., Cohen S., Schiff M. et al. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med 1999;159(21):2542-50.</p><p>Emery P., Breedveld F.C., Lemmel E.M. et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39(6):655-65.</p><p>Martin K., Bentaberry F., Dumoulin C. et al. Effectiveness and safety profile of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis: actual practice compared with clinical trials. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23(1):80-4.</p><p>Pisoni L., Murgo A., Paresce E. et al. Effectiveness and safety of leflunomide in the clinical practice. A different experience. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25(1):115.</p><p>Kellner H., Bornholdt K., Hein G. Leflunomide in the treatment of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis - results of a prospective non-interventional study. Clin Rheumatol 2010;29(8):913-20.</p><p>Балабанова Р.М., Маколкин В.И., Шостак Н.А. и др. Динамика показателей воспалительной активности у больных ревматоидным артритом на ранних этапах базисной терапии лефлуномидом. Тер арх 2004;5:28-32.</p><p>Cao W.W., Kao P.N., Chao A.C. et al. Mechanism of the antiproliferative action of leflunomide. A77 1726, the active metabolite of leflunomide, does not block T-cell receptor-mediated signal transduction but its antiproliferative effects are antagonized by pyrimidine nucleosides. J Heart Lung Transplant 1995;14(6 Pt 1):1016-30.</p><p>Cherwinski H.M., Byars N., Ballaron S.J. et al. Leflunomide interferes with pyrimidine nucleotide biosynthesis. Inflamm Res 1995;44:317-22.</p><p>Zielinski T., Zeitter D., Mullner S., Bartlett R.R. Leflunomide, a reversible inhibitor of pyrimidine biosynthesis. Inflamm Res 1995;44(Suppl. 2):207-8.</p><p>Burger D., Begue-Pastor N., Benavent S. et al. The active metabolite of leflunomide, A77 1726, inhibits the production of prostaglandin E(2), matrix metalloproteinase 1 and interleukin 6 in human fibroblast-like synoviocytes. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42(1):89-96.</p></div><br />