Leflunomide, a new disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug and the never ending rheumatoid arthritis story

J. S. Smolen1,2,, W. B. Graninger1 and P. Emery3

1 Department of Rheumatology, Internal Medicine III, Vienna General Hospital, University of Vienna,
2 Second Department of Medicine—Centre for the Rheumatic Diseases, Lainz Hospital, Vienna, Austria and
3 Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

The standard approach to the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been revised during the last decade. Traditionally a treatment pyramid [1, 2] was used but this has been challenged [39]. In particular, the original philosophy which fostered a ‘wait and see [with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)]’ attitude has been taken apart and replaced by the demand ‘Treat now, not later!’ [10]. As a result, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are now initiated more as early in the disease course as possible, i.e. as soon as an accurate diagnosis is made [1012]. Many issues are unresolved, including: (a) the definition of ‘early RA’, since most studies of so-called early RA have dealt with patients who had the disease for 1, 2 or even more years [13]; (b) how to reduce the period between onset of symptoms and presentation to a rheumatologist [1315]; (c) the non-specific nature of inflammatory polyarthritis at early stages [16, 17]; (d) uncertainty about the long-term impact of early intervention; (e) relatively small, i.e. 20% improvements that are viewed as significant achievements from therapy [18, 19].

Despite these queries, the value of early therapy is now accepted, especially as the risks of therapies with DMARDs in very early disease are low compared with the risk of the disease itself [20] and even compared with the risks of treatment with conventional NSAIDs [2123].

Modern therapeutic approaches include either a step-up approach, using conventional DMARDs such as sulphasalazine, methotrexate or anti-malarials at the highest doses necessary followed by combination therapy [24, 25] and/or new therapies alone or in combination with other DMARDs; or, alternatively, a step-down approach starting with combination therapy [26].

Two of the variables that best correlate with long-term outcome are the numbers of swollen joints and the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) [2729]. The ideal situation in the therapy of RA would be to achieve or come close to remission [30]. Thus, the real therapeutic need is to aim for ‘zero swollen joints and zero increase in CRP’.

How will rheumatologists achieve this? Currently employed DMARDs, even if applied early in the course of RA, have a limited drug-survival span either due to toxicity or insufficient efficacy. Thus, in the majority of patients, DMARDs have to be stopped and exchanged for others within a few years [3133]. Interestingly, all DMARDs have a responder rate of 40–70% of patients, who may then respond to the next DMARD at approximately the same proportion, i.e. at least 30% non-response (this is true even with the new successful agents). Moreover, once effective to the degree of a defined minimal response or above, this response may wear off and patients again become non-responders. Thus, during the lifetime of the disease, the patients may receive up to 10 courses of different DMARDs or their combinations. However, the number of DMARDs is limited. Thus, once most or all DMARDs have been applied, rheumatologists have been traditionally forced to re-apply previously ineffective drugs hoping that now they may be better effective, albeit in the context of combination therapy.

As RA patients are in need of new therapeutic options, fortunately several new compounds have been licensed in the European Union, namely leflunomide [34] and the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking agents [35, 36]; other substances are on the horizon. Thus, new agents expand the rheumatologists' armamentarium to combat the most crippling joint disease.

One such new compound is leflunomide. Leflunomide is an isoxazole derivative which exerts its effects, after metabolic opening of the isoxazole ring, via its active metabolite A77 1726. Leflunomide appears to have several effects of immunological relevance. Its major target is dihydro-orotate-dehydrogenase (DHODH), a key enzyme of the de novo pyrimidine synthesis, with subsequent inhibition of RNA and DNA synthesis [37]. This leads to disproportionate availability of nucleotides in activated T cells [38] and subsequently to reversible cell cycle arrest [38], presumably by activation of p53 [39, 40]. This effect is mainly exerted upon activated T cells which are important elements in the pathogenesis of RA [41].

Leflunomide may also inhibit the proliferation of B cells and the production of antibodies [42]. In line with the effects on B and/or helper T cells is the significant reduction of rheumatoid factor levels in RA patients treated with leflunomide [34].

In addition, leflunomide inhibits the activation and gene expression of nuclear factor (NF) {kappa}B [43]. NF{kappa}B is a ubiquitous transcription factor which is activated by a variety of inflammatory stimuli such as TNF-{alpha} and interleukin-1 (IL-1), usually via induction of degradation of its inhibitor I{kappa}B [44]; the subsequent translocation of NF{kappa}B to the nucleus leads to the activation of a variety of genes including those for various cytokines and metalloproteinases. The NF{kappa}B-activating cytokines TNF-{alpha} and IL-1 are crucially important in the pathogenesis of the joint destruction seen in RA [41, 4547]. These cytokines are also responsible for the induction of the acute phase response [48]. The degree of this acute phase response is associated with disease activity, radiographic progression and outcome of RA [27, 28, 49]. The observation that leflunomide rapidly reduces the acute phase response in patients with RA [34] supports the findings on its effects upon TNF-{alpha}-mediated signal transduction pathways.

Thus, in RA, leflunomide may act at several levels all relevant to the pathogenesis of the disease: at the T-cell level, at the B-cell level and at the level of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Clinically, short- and intermediate-term studies indicate that the efficacy of leflunomide is comparable to that of sulphasalazine and methotrexate [34, 50], whilst in the long term, leflunomide appears to be superior to sulphasalazine at 2 g/day [51]. Moreover, leflunomide may be an effective compound for combination therapy, since it led to quite significant improvements in methotrexate non-responders in whom it was added on top of a relatively high median dose of methotrexate in an open study [52]. In two patients it even led to clinical remission. Consequently, further controlled studies of combinations of leflunomide (with sulphasalazine as well as methotrexate) are underway.

Importantly, leflunomide retards radiographic disease progression to a similar degree as sulphasalazine and methotrexate, as early as after 6 months of therapy [34, 50]. This effect appears to be sustained in the longer term, and results in retardation of radiographic erosions [53].

Leflunomide is as efficacious in patients with relatively early disease (<2 yr duration) as in those with longer-standing RA and it has similar efficacy in DMARD-naive patients as in those previously treated with one or more DMARD [34, 54].

Leflunomide shares liver toxicity with methotrexate and sulphasalazine [34, 50], and there may be added hepatic toxicity if it is combined with methotrexate [52]. Leflunomide can also induce nausea, diarrhoea, alopecia and mild weight loss. All these side-effects tend to decrease in frequency with continued use. On the other hand, life-threatening events, such as pneumonitis, as seen with methotrexate, or rapid-onset agranulocytosis, as seen with sulphasalazine, were not observed in the clinical studies which comprised over 1000 patients treated for up to 3 yr, although leucocytopenia, potentially progressing into agranulocytosis, may occur, particularly when leflunomide is combined with methotrexate. More than 80 000 patients have now been treated in the USA and these events appear to be rare; no case of pneumonitis has been observed to our knowledge. Critical evaluation of rare reports on vasculitis did not provide unequivocal evidence for an association with leflunomide [54]. However, whereas the drug may be beneficial in some forms of vasculitis [55], it may not be an effective compound for the vasculitis associated with RA [34, 54].

It is notable for the rheumatological community that these clinical trials of leflunomide have not only been interesting and important but have also expanded our knowledge on the efficacy of sulphasalazine and methotrexate in a large patient cohort studied in the short and intermediate term. The emphasis has been particularly on radiographic progression and the accrued database is invaluable as a research tool.

So where do we go from here? Leflunomide is an efficacious agent, but it will not cure RA nor does it—at least as a monotherapy—lead to a high proportion of complete remissions; in this respect it is no different from other compounds. The TNF-blocking agents are new promising biologicals, but even these agents, when used in monotherapy, have led to relatively few complete remissions [35, 36]. On the other hand, leflunomide combined with methotrexate and TNF blockers combined with methotrexate showed a significant and sustained improvement in many patients [52, 5658]. Thus, it is relevant to consider whether the combination of leflunomide with a TNF-{alpha}-blocking compound would be a particularly effective therapy and such combinations clearly need to be studied.

The future for patients with RA appears more promising than it has ever been since the first DMARD was prescribed in the 1920s. Not only has our understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease and its clinical manifestations improved, but DMARDs are used more effectively at higher doses and in combinations. Furthermore, changes in diagnostic and treatment paradigms have meant that novel compounds and therapeutic principles have become a therapeutic reality. Hopefully, all these achievements will really change the prognosis of our patients while we are waiting for even better strategies that eventually may lead to the cure of RA.

Notes

Correspondence to: J. S. Smolen, Department of Rheumatology, Internal Medicine III, Vienna General Hospital, University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18–20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Back

References

  1. Hess EV, Luggen ME. Remodeling the pyramid—a concept whose time has not yet come. J Rheumatol1989;16:1175–6.[ISI][Medline]
  2. Bensen WG, Bensen W, Adachi JD, Tugwell PX. Remodelling the pyramid: the therapeutic target of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol1990;17:987–9.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Brick JE, DiBartolomeo AG. Rethinking the therapeutic pyramid for rheumatoid arthritis. When are NSAIDs alone not enough? Postgrad Med1992;91:75.
  4. Healey LA, Wilske KR. Reforming the pyramid. A plan for treating rheumatoid arthritis in the 1990s. Rheum Dis Clin North Am1989;15:615–9.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Katz WA. Challenging the pyramid. A new look at therapeutic approaches for rheumatoid arthritis. Patient selection. J Rheumatol (Suppl.)1990;25:39–41.
  6. Levinson JE, Wallace CA. Dismantling the pyramid. J Rheumatol (Suppl.)1992;33:6–10.
  7. McCarty DJ. Suppress rheumatoid inflammation early and leave the pyramid to the Egyptians. J Rheumatol1990;17:1115–8.[ISI][Medline]
  8. Pincus T, Callahan LF. Remodeling the pyramid or remodeling the paradigms concerning rheumatoid arthritis—lessons from Hodgkin's disease and coronary artery disease. J Rheumatol1990;17:1582–5.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Wilske KR, Healey LA. Remodeling the pyramid—a concept whose time has come. J Rheumatol1989;16:565–7.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Weinblatt ME. Rheumatoid arthritis: treat now, not later! Ann Intern Med1996;124:773–4.[Free Full Text]
  11. van der Heide A, Jacobs JW, Bijlsma JW et al. The effectiveness of early treatment with second-line antirheumatic drugs. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med1996;124:699–707.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Stenger AA, Van Leeuwen MA, Houtman PM et al. Early effective suppression of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis reduces radiographic progression. Br J Rheumatol1998;37:1157–63.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Machold KP, Eberl G, Leeb BF, Nell V, Windisch B, Smolen JS. Early arthritis therapy: rationale and current approach. J Rheumatol (Suppl.)1998;53:13–9.
  14. Chan KW, Felson DT, Yood RA, Walker AM. The lag time between onset of symptoms and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum1994;37:814–20.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Eberl GJM, Nell VPK, Böhm P, Smolen JS. Very recent onset rheumatoid arthritis—clinical findings in relation to radiological progression in the Austrian Early Arthritis Action (AEAA). Arthritis Rheum1999;42:S127 (abstract).
  16. Harrison BJ, Symmons DP, Brennan P, Barrett EM, Silman AJ. Natural remission in inflammatory polyarthritis: issues of definition and prediction. Br J Rheumatol1996;35:1096–100.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Green M, Marzo-Ortega H, McGonagle D, Veale D, Waldman H, Hale G et al. Persistence of mild, early inflammatory arthritis: The importance of disease duration, rheumatoid factor, and the shared epitope. Arthritis Rheum1999;42:2184–9.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Pincus T, Stein CM. ACR 20: clinical or statistical significance? Arthritis Rheum1999;42:1572–6.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Lange ML, Wells G, LaValley MP. Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent? Arthritis Rheum1998;41:1564–70.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Pincus T, Callahan LF. What is the natural history of rheumatoid arthritis? Rheum Dis Clin North Am1993;19:123–51.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Singh G. Recent considerations in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy. Am J Med1998;105:31S.[Medline]
  22. Simon LS. The evolution of arthritis antiinflammatory care: where are we today? J Rheumatol1999;26(Suppl. 56):11–7.[ISI][Medline]
  23. McCarthy D. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related gastrointestinal toxicity: definitions and epidemiology. Am J Med1998;105:3S.[Medline]
  24. Tugwell P, Pincus T, Yocum D et al. Combination therapy with cyclosporine and methotrexate in severe rheumatoid arthritis. The Methotrexate–Cyclosporine Combination Study Group. N Engl J Med1995;333:137–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. O'Dell JR. Triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am1998;24:465–77.[ISI][Medline]
  26. 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. Lancet1997;350:309–18.[ISI][Medline]
  27. Möttönen T, Paimela L, Leirisalo-Repo M, Kautiainen H, Ilonen J, Hannonen P. Only high disease activity and positive rheumatoid factor indicate poor prognosis in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated with sawtooth strategy. Ann Rheum Dis1998;57:533–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Van Leeuwen MA, van Rijswijk MH, Sluiter WJ et al. Individual relationship between progression of radiological damage and the acute phase response in early rheumatoid arthritis. Towards development of a decision support system. J Rheumatol1997;24:20–7.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Scott DL, Houssien DA. Joint assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol1996;35(Suppl. 2):14–8.
  30. Emery P, Salmon M. Early rheumatoid arthritis: time to aim for remission? Ann Rheum Dis1995;54:944–7.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Wolfe F, Hawley DJ, Cathey MA. Termination of slow acting antirheumatic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a 14-year prospective evaluation of 1017 consecutive starts. J Rheumatol1990;17:994–1002.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Use of short-term efficacy/toxicity tradeoffs to select second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. A metaanalysis of published clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum1992;35:1117–25.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Clinical and economic evaluation of toxicity-related laboratory investigations in rheumatoid arthritis patients on disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (submitted).
  34. Smolen JS, Kalden JR, Scott DL 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. Lancet1999;353:259–66.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Elliott MJ, Maini RN, Feldmann M et al. Repeated therapy with monoclonal antibody to tumour necrosis factor alpha (cA2) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet1994;344:1125–7.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Moreland LW, Baumgartner SW, Schiff MH et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein. N Engl J Med1997;337:141–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Rückemann K, Fairbanks LD, Carrey EA et al. Leflunomide inhibits pyrimidine de novo synthesis in mitogen-stimulated T-lymphocytes from healthy humans. J Biol Chem1998;273:21682–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Fairbanks LD, Bofill M, Ruckemann K, Simmonds HA. Importance of ribonucleotide availability to proliferating T-lymphocytes from healthy humans. Disproportionate expansion of pyrimidine pools and contrasting effects of de novo synthesis inhibitors. J Biol Chem1995;270:29682–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Mirmohammadsadegh A, Homey B, Abts HF, Köhrer K, Ruzicka T, Michel G. Differential modulation of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine receptors by N-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)-2-cyano-3-hydroxy-crotonic acid amide (A77 1726), the physiologically active metabolite of the novel immunomodulator leflunomide. Biochem Pharmacol1998;55:1523–9.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Fox RI. Mechanism of action of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol (Suppl.)1998;53:20–6.
  41. Steiner G, Tohidast-Akrad M, Witzmann G et al. Cytokine production by synovial T cells in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology1999;38:202–13.[Abstract]
  42. Siemasko KF, Chong AS, Williams JW, Bremer EG, Finnegan A. Regulation of B cell function by the immunosuppressive agent leflunomide. Transplantation1996;61:635–42.[ISI][Medline]
  43. Manna SK, Aggarwal BB. Immunosuppressive leflunomide metabolite (A77 1726) blocks TNF-dependent nuclear factor-kappa B activation and gene expression. J Immunol1999;162:2095–102.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Verma IM, Stevenson J. IkappaB kinase: beginning, not the end. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA1997;94:11758–60.[Free Full Text]
  45. Feldmann M, Brennan F, Paleolog E, Taylor P, Maini RN. Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy of rheumatoid arthritis. Mechanism of action. Eur Cytokine Netw1997;8:297–300.[ISI][Medline]
  46. Maini RN, Elliott MJ, Charles PJ, Feldmann M. Immunological intervention reveals reciprocal roles for tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-10 in rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Springer Semin Immunopathol1994;16:327–36.[ISI][Medline]
  47. Arend WP, Dayer JM. Inhibition of the production and effects of interleukin-1 and tumor necrosis factor alpha in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum1995;38:151–60.[ISI][Medline]
  48. Pepys MB. Rheumatoid arthritis: the role of acute-phase proteins. Br J Rheumatol1993;32(Suppl. 3):1–2.
  49. Devlin J, Gough A, Huissoon A et al. The acute phase and function in early rheumatoid arthritis. C-reactive protein levels correlate with functional outcome. J Rheumatol1997;24:9–13.[ISI][Medline]
  50. Strand V, Cohen S, Schiff M, Weaver A et al. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med1999;159:2542–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Kalden JR, Schattenkirchner M, Smolen J, Loew-Friedrich I, Oed C, Rosenburg R. Leflunomide vs sulfasalazine in RA: 24 months update of a randomized double blind study. Arthritis Rheum1999;42(Suppl.):271 (abstract 1202).
  52. Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Coblyn JS et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of combination treatment with methotrexate and leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum1999; 42:1322–8.[ISI][Medline]
  53. Cohen S, Weaver AL, Schiff MH, Strand V. Two-year treatment of active RA with leflunomide compared with placebo or methotrexate. Arthritis Rheum1999;42(Suppl.):271(abstract 1201).
  54. Smolen JS, Scott DL, Kalden JR, Loew-Friedrich I, Oed C. Leflunomide for active rheumatoid arthritis (comment). Lancet1999;353(9167):1883–4.
  55. Gross WL. New concepts in treatment protocols for severe systemic vasculitis. Curr Opin Rheumatol1999;11:41–6.[Medline]
  56. Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD et al. A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med1999; 340:253–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Rezaian MM. Do infliximab and methotrexate act synergistically in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis? Comment on the article by Maini et al. Arthritis Rheum1999;42:1779–81.[Medline]
  58. Maini RN, Breedveld FC, Kalden JR et al. Therapeutic efficacy of multiple intravenous infusions of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody combined with low-dose weekly methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum1998;41:1552–63.[ISI][Medline]




This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Smolen, J. S.
Articles by Emery, P.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Smolen, J. S.
Articles by Emery, P.