Effectiveness of methotrexate and leflunomide as corticoid-sparing drugs in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica.

IF 2.1 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Rheumatology Advances in Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/rap/rkae033
Juan Pablo Vinicki, Alejandra Cusa, Daniela Domingo, José Luis Velasco Zamora, Sebastián Magri, Alejandro Brigante, Maria Marcela Schmid, Paola Ávila, Natalia Zamora, Laura Sorrentino, Anabella M Rodriguez, Miguel Linarez, Cecilia Pisoni, Carolina Costi, Gustavo Rodriguez Gil, María Andrea Spinetto, Vanesa Ursula Paris, Natalia Perrotta, María Del Rosario Maliandi, Oscar Rillo, Claudia Pena, Julio Got, Javier Cavallasca, Maximiliano Machado Escobar, Carolina Iturralde, María Victoria Martire, Romina Tessel, N Saravia Chocobar, Graciela Alarcon
{"title":"Effectiveness of methotrexate and leflunomide as corticoid-sparing drugs in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica.","authors":"Juan Pablo Vinicki, Alejandra Cusa, Daniela Domingo, José Luis Velasco Zamora, Sebastián Magri, Alejandro Brigante, Maria Marcela Schmid, Paola Ávila, Natalia Zamora, Laura Sorrentino, Anabella M Rodriguez, Miguel Linarez, Cecilia Pisoni, Carolina Costi, Gustavo Rodriguez Gil, María Andrea Spinetto, Vanesa Ursula Paris, Natalia Perrotta, María Del Rosario Maliandi, Oscar Rillo, Claudia Pena, Julio Got, Javier Cavallasca, Maximiliano Machado Escobar, Carolina Iturralde, María Victoria Martire, Romina Tessel, N Saravia Chocobar, Graciela Alarcon","doi":"10.1093/rap/rkae033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The need for glucocorticoid-sparing drugs (GCSD) remains an important issue and is an unmet need in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). We therefore aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of methotrexate (MTX) and of leflunomide (LEF) in daily clinical practice in PMR patients from Argentina.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre and observational study (medical records review) of PMR patients seen between 2007 and 2023, who had at least three months of follow-up after starting a GCSD, either MTX or LEF, was performed. Results are expressed as medians and interquartile ranges [25th-75th (IQR)] for continuous variables and percentages for categorical ones. The two treatment groups were compared using χ<sup>2</sup> test for categorical variables, Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the log-rank test for time-to-event data. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression. In all cases, a <i>p</i>-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred and eighty-six patients (79% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR, 65-77 years) were included. One-hundred and forty-three patients (77%) were prescribed MTX (15, IQR 10-15) and 43 (23%) LEF (20 mg, fixed dose). Flare-ups (relapses and recurrences) occurred in 13 patients (7%) and were comparable between both groups. Persistent GCSD intake was observed in 145 patients (78%). Glucocorticoid (GC) withdrawal was achieved in 67 of these 145 patients (46%) and this occurred more frequently in the LEF group (<i>P = 0.001</i>). Furthermore, time until prednisone discontinuation was shorter in the LEF-treated patients (4.7 months, IQR 3-20 on LEF versus 31.8 months, IQR 10-82 on MTX, <i>P = 0.000</i>). Remission was found more frequently in the LEF group (<i>P = 0.003</i>). In the multivariate analysis, the probability of remission was higher with LEF therapy (<i>P </i>=<i> </i>0.010) and this finding persisted in the subgroup analysis who were followed up < 40 months (OR 3.12, 95% CI = 1.30-7.47, <i>P </i>= 0.011).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of LEF and even its superiority in achieving remission when compared with MTX as GCSD in PMR patients. Further research is needed to support these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":21350,"journal":{"name":"Rheumatology Advances in Practice","volume":"8 2","pages":"rkae033"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10978571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rheumatology Advances in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkae033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The need for glucocorticoid-sparing drugs (GCSD) remains an important issue and is an unmet need in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). We therefore aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of methotrexate (MTX) and of leflunomide (LEF) in daily clinical practice in PMR patients from Argentina.

Methods: A multicentre and observational study (medical records review) of PMR patients seen between 2007 and 2023, who had at least three months of follow-up after starting a GCSD, either MTX or LEF, was performed. Results are expressed as medians and interquartile ranges [25th-75th (IQR)] for continuous variables and percentages for categorical ones. The two treatment groups were compared using χ2 test for categorical variables, Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the log-rank test for time-to-event data. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression. In all cases, a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: One-hundred and eighty-six patients (79% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR, 65-77 years) were included. One-hundred and forty-three patients (77%) were prescribed MTX (15, IQR 10-15) and 43 (23%) LEF (20 mg, fixed dose). Flare-ups (relapses and recurrences) occurred in 13 patients (7%) and were comparable between both groups. Persistent GCSD intake was observed in 145 patients (78%). Glucocorticoid (GC) withdrawal was achieved in 67 of these 145 patients (46%) and this occurred more frequently in the LEF group (P = 0.001). Furthermore, time until prednisone discontinuation was shorter in the LEF-treated patients (4.7 months, IQR 3-20 on LEF versus 31.8 months, IQR 10-82 on MTX, P = 0.000). Remission was found more frequently in the LEF group (P = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis, the probability of remission was higher with LEF therapy (P =0.010) and this finding persisted in the subgroup analysis who were followed up < 40 months (OR 3.12, 95% CI = 1.30-7.47, P = 0.011).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of LEF and even its superiority in achieving remission when compared with MTX as GCSD in PMR patients. Further research is needed to support these findings.

甲氨蝶呤和来氟米特作为皮质类固醇节约药物对多发性风湿性关节炎患者的疗效。
目标:在多发性风湿病(PMR)的治疗中,对糖皮质激素备用药物(GCSD)的需求仍然是一个重要问题,也是一个尚未满足的需求。因此,我们旨在评估甲氨蝶呤(MTX)和来氟米特(LEF)在阿根廷多发性风湿病患者日常临床实践中的有效性和安全性:方法:对2007年至2023年期间就诊的PMR患者进行了一项多中心观察研究(病历回顾),这些患者在开始使用GCSD(MTX或LEF)后至少随访了三个月。连续变量以中位数和四分位数间距[25-75th (IQR)]表示,分类变量以百分比表示。两组治疗结果的比较采用χ2检验(分类变量)、Mann-Whitney U检验(连续变量)和对数秩检验(时间-事件数据)。使用逻辑回归法计算粗略和调整后的几率比(ORs)及 95% 置信区间(CIs)。在所有情况下,P 值均为结果:共纳入 186 名患者(79% 为女性),中位年龄为 72 岁(IQR,65-77 岁)。143 名患者(77%)接受了 MTX 治疗(15 次,IQR 10-15 次),43 名患者(23%)接受了 LEF 治疗(20 毫克,固定剂量)。有 13 名患者(7%)病情复发(复发和复发),两组患者的复发率相当。有 145 名患者(78%)持续摄入 GCSD。在这 145 例患者中,有 67 例(46%)实现了糖皮质激素(GC)的停药,而 LEF 组的停药频率更高(P = 0.001)。此外,LEF组患者停用泼尼松的时间更短(LEF组为4.7个月,IQR为3-20;MTX组为31.8个月,IQR为10-82,P = 0.000)。LEF组患者的病情缓解率更高(P = 0.003)。在多变量分析中,LEF治疗的缓解概率更高(P = 0.010),这一结果在随访<40个月的亚组分析中依然存在(OR 3.12,95% CI = 1.30-7.47,P = 0.011):这项研究证明了LEF的临床疗效,与MTX作为GCSD相比,LEF在实现PMR患者病情缓解方面更具优势。需要进一步的研究来支持这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rheumatology Advances in Practice
Rheumatology Advances in Practice Medicine-Rheumatology
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
197
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信