Improved functional ability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis--longterm treatment with leflunomide versus sulfasalazine. European Leflunomide Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: We previously reported that the new disease modifying antirheumatic drug leflunomide resulted in significant improvement in functional ability compared with placebo and sulfasalazine in a 6 month double blind, randomized, Phase III trial in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The current study compared functional disability in cohorts of patients with RA from the initial study who volunteered to continue treatment with leflunomide or sulfasalazine. METHODS: The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was used to assess functional ability in patients completing 6 months of therapy who chose to continue in double blinded 12 and 24 month extensions. Patients on active regimens continued taking leflunomide 20 mg/day or sulfasalazine 2 g/day; those taking placebo were switched at Month 6 to sulfasalazine. RESULTS: Leflunomide significantly improved patients' functional ability compared to placebo (p < or = 0.0001) and sulfasalazine (p < or = 0.01) at 6 months. These changes were seen as early as Month 1, and continued improvements were seen in 12 and 24 month cohorts. Mean HAQ scores were significantly improved with leflunomide compared with sulfasalazine at 24 months (-0.65 vs -0.36; p = 0.0149); corresponding changes in HAQ Disability Index (DI) were -0.73 vs -0.56 and were not statistically different. Leflunomide is safe and well tolerated and no unexpected adverse events were noted during the 2 year period; diarrhea, nausea, and alopecia were less frequent with continued treatment. CONCLUSION: These longterm data confirm leflunomide improves functional ability as shown by reductions in HAQ scores. The benefit of leflunomide is reflected in other efficacy criteria, such as global assessments and the American College of Rheumatology response rates, all of which showed significantly more improvement with leflunomide than sulfasalazine at 24 months.

Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide: two year follow up of a double blind, placebo controlled trial versus sulfasalazine.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have demonstrated the short term efficacy of leflunomide. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and sulfasalazine in rheumatoid arthritis over a two year follow up period. METHODS: 358 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a double blind trial were randomly allocated to receive either leflunomide 20 mg/day, placebo, or sulfasalazine 2 g/day. Those completing six months of treatment (n=230) were given the option to continue in 12 (n=168) and 24 (n=146) month double blinded extensions; the placebo group switched to sulfasalazine. This report compares efficacy and safety of leflunomide with sulfasalazine in the 6, 12, and 24 month patient cohorts. RESULTS: The efficacy seen at six months was maintained at 12 and 24 months. Twenty four month cohorts on leflunomide showed significant improvement compared with sulfasalazine in doctor (-1.46 v -1.11, p=0.03) and patient (-1.61 v -1.04, p<0.001) global assessments, ACR20% response (82% v 60%, p<0.01), and functional ability (Deltamean HAQ -0.65 v -0.36, p=0.0149; DeltaHAQ disability index -0.89 v -0.60, p=0.059). Improvement in other variables was comparable for the two drugs, including slowing of disease progression. Improved HAQ scores in 6, 12, and 24 month leflunomide cohorts were seen in both non-responders (24%, 29%, 35%, respectively v sulfasalazine 8%, 10%, 27%) and ACR20% responders (leflunomide 63%, 62%, 66% v sulfasalazine 50%, 64%, 44%). Leflunomide is well tolerated at doses of 20 mg. No unexpected adverse events or late toxicity were noted during the two year period. Diarrhoea, nausea, and alopecia were less frequent with continued treatment. CONCLUSION: These long term data confirm that leflunomide is an efficacious and safe disease modifying antirheumatic drug.

Slowing of disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients during long-term treatment with leflunomide or sulfasalazine.

Radiographic disease progression with leflunomide and sulfasalazine treatment was assessed in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a double-blind trial that was placebo controlled for the first 6 months. Completers at 6 months opted to continue on 12- and 24-month double-blind extensions; patients in the placebo group were switched to sulfasalazine. Changes in Larsen scores were assessed in evaluable patient cohorts at 6 (n=228), 12 (n=136), and 24 (n=65) months. Changes in Larsen scores and erosive joint counts with leflunomide and sulfasalazine at 6 months showed significantly less radiographic progression than placebo. Sustained retardation of radiographic progression was seen in the 24-month intent-to-treat cohorts (delta Larsen scores: leflunomide -0.07, sulfasalazine -0.03). Changes in erosive joint counts within the 24-month leflunomide cohort suggest halting of disease progression for patients who continued in the study for 2 years (leflunomide -0.92, sulfasalazine 0.80). Leflunomide was well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events during the 2-year period. This study demonstrates that slowing of disease progression with leflunomide, observed as early as 6 months, is maintained long term in patients who complete 2 years of treatment.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind trial, 999 subjects with active RA were randomized to leflunomide (n = 501; loading dose 100 mg/day for 3 days, maintenance dose 20 mg/day) or methotrexate (n = 498; 10-15 mg/week) for 52 weeks. After 1 yr the subjects could choose to stay for a second year of double-blind treatment. The primary end-points were tender and swollen joint counts and overall physician and patient assessments. Analyses were of the intent-to-treat group. RESULTS: After 1 yr, the mean changes in the leflunomide and methotrexate groups, respectively, were -8.3 and -9.7 for tender joint count; -6.8 and -9.0 for swollen joint count; -0.9 and -1.2 for physician global assessment; -0.9 and -1.2 for patient global assessment; -14.4 and -28.2 for erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Improvements seen with methotrexate were significantly greater than those with leflunomide. No further improvement occurred after the second year of treatment and the distinction between the two treatments in terms of tender joint count and patient global assessment was lost. During the first year of treatment, a small and equivalent degree of radiographically assessed disease progression was seen with both drugs. After 2 yr, disease progression was significantly less with methotrexate. The most common treatment-related adverse events in both groups were diarrhoea, nausea, alopecia, rash, headache, and elevated plasma liver enzyme levels. Over 2 yr, 21 subjects receiving methotrexate were withdrawn due to elevated plasma liver enzymes vs eight subjects taking leflunomide. Two drug-related deaths from pulmonary causes were recorded with methotrexate vs no drug-related deaths among the subjects receiving leflunomide. CONCLUSIONS: Both leflunomide and methotrexate are efficacious for prolonged treatment of RA. At the doses used, some clinical benefit of methotrexate over leflunomide was observed in the first year of treatment. This benefit must be weighed against the potential toxicity of this drug when used without folate supplementation.

Leflunomide: efficacy and safety in clinical trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Leflunomide is a new disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) that inhibits lymphocyte proliferation by blocking dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH), the enzyme critical for the production of pyrimidine necessary for DNA synthesis. Through this mode of action, leflunomide inhibits the lymphocyte proliferation associated with the clonal expansion of T cells in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical trials, leflunomide was superior to placebo and comparable to sulfasalazine and methotrexate for improving both the signs and symptoms of RA. Leflunomide was also superior to placebo and sulfasalazine and comparable to methotrexate in overall improvement of physical function. Leflunomide was equivalent to methotrexate and sulfasalazine in retarding disease progression measured radiographically. Due to its unique mode of action in the treatment of RA, leflunomide shows value in combination therapy with methotrexate for patients refractory to methotrexate alone. The most common adverse reactions associated with leflunomide therapy include gastrointestinal symptoms, allergic reactions, reversible alopecia and elevated liver enzymes. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, and resolved without complication. The results of phase II and phase III clinical trials indicate that leflunomide is a safe and efficacious drug for the treatment of RA.

Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. European Leflunomide Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Phase II trials of leflunomide, an inhibitor of de-novo pyrimidine synthesis, have shown efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis. This double-blind randomised trial compared leflunomide with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: 358 patients were randomly assigned leflunomide (100 mg daily on days 1-3, then 20 mg daily), placebo, or sulphasalazine (0.5 g daily, titrated progressively to 2.0 g daily at week 4). The primary endpoints were tender and swollen joint counts and investigator's and patient's overall assessments. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The mean changes in the leflunomide, placebo, and sulphasalazine groups were -9.7, -4.3, and -8.1 for tender joint count; -7.2, -3.4, and -6.2 for swollen joint count; -1.1, -0.3, and -1.0 for physician's overall assessment; and -1.1, -0.4, and -1.1 for patient's overall assessment. Leflunomide and sulphasalazine were significantly superior to placebo (p=0.0001 for joint counts; p<0.001 for assessments). Radiographic disease progression was significantly slower with leflunomide and sulphasalazine than with placebo (p<0.01). Most common adverse events with leflunomide were diarrhoea (17%), nausea (10%), alopecia (8%), and rash (10%). Transiently abnormal liver function was seen in three leflunomide-group patients and five sulphasalazine-group patients. There were two cases of reversible agranulocytosis in the sulphasalazine group. INTERPRETATION: Leflunomide was more effective than placebo in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and showed similar efficacy to sulphasalazine. Leflunomide was well tolerated. This drug may be a useful option as a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.