Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleRheumatoid Arthritis

Safety of the Methotrexate–leflunomide Combination in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Multicentric, Registry-based, Cohort Study (BiobadaBrasil)

Markus Bredemeier, Roberto Ranza, Adriana M. Kakehasi, Aline Ranzolin, Inês G. da Silveira, Ana C.M. Ribeiro, David C. Titton, André L.S. Hayata, Hellen M.S. Carvalho, Bárbara S. Kahlow, Vander Fernandes, Paulo Louzada Jr., Manoel B. Bértolo, Ângela L.B.P. Duarte, José C. Macieira, José R.S. Miranda, Geraldo R.C. Pinheiro, Reginaldo B. Teodoro, Marcelo M. Pinheiro, Valéria Valim, Ivânio A. Pereira, Maria F.L.C. Sauma, Gláucio R.W. de Castro, Laurindo F. da Rocha Jr., Sâmia A.S. Studart, Morgana O. Gazzeta, Leticia G. da Silveira, Cristiano M. Lupo and Ieda M.M. Laurindo
The Journal of Rheumatology October 2021, 48 (10) 1519-1527; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.201248
Markus Bredemeier
1M. Bredemeier, MD, PhD, Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Grupo Hospitalar Conceição, Porto Alegre;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Markus Bredemeier
  • For correspondence: markbred@terra.com.br
Roberto Ranza
2R. Ranza, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Roberto Ranza
Adriana M. Kakehasi
3A.M. Kakehasi, MD, PhD, Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Adriana M. Kakehasi
Aline Ranzolin
4A. Ranzolin, MD, PhD, A.L. Duarte, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Aline Ranzolin
Inês G. da Silveira
5I.G. da Silveira, MD, PhD, Hospital São Lucas, Faculdade de Medicina da PUCRS, Porto Algere;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ana C.M. Ribeiro
6A.C. Ribeiro, MD, PhD, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP (HCFMUSP), São Paulo;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ana C.M. Ribeiro
David C. Titton
7D.C. Titton, MD, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
André L.S. Hayata
8A.L. Hayata, MD, PhD, Clínica de Reumatologia, Osasco;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hellen M.S. Carvalho
9H.M. Carvalho, MD, Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal, Brasília;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bárbara S. Kahlow
10B.S. Kahlow, MD, Hospital Universitário Evangélico de Curitiba, Curitiba;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vander Fernandes
11V. Fernandes, MD, PhD, Hospital Geral Universitário de Cuiabá, Cuiabá;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paulo Louzada Jr.
12P. Louzada Jr., MD, PhD, Faculdade de Medicina USP, Ribeirão Preto;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manoel B. Bértolo
13M. Bértolo, MD, PhD, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ângela L.B.P. Duarte
4A. Ranzolin, MD, PhD, A.L. Duarte, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José C. Macieira
14J.C. Macieira, MD, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Aracajú;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José R.S. Miranda
15J.R. Miranda, MD, Artrocenter Clínica Médica de Taubaté, Taubaté;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geraldo R.C. Pinheiro
16G.R. Pinheiro, MD, PhD, Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Reginaldo B. Teodoro
17R.B. Teodoro, MD, Hospital da Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcelo M. Pinheiro
18M.M. Pinheiro, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valéria Valim
19V. Valim, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivânio A. Pereira
20I.A. Pereira, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria F.L.C. Sauma
21M.F. Sauma, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gláucio R.W. de Castro
22G.R. de Castro, MD, Hospital Governador Celso Ramos, Florianópolis;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurindo F. da Rocha Jr.
23L.F. da Rocha Jr., MD, PhD, Instituto de Medicina Integral Prof. Fernando Figueira (IMIP), Recife;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sâmia A.S. Studart
24S.A. Studart, MD, Hospital Geral de Fortaleza, Fortaleza;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Morgana O. Gazzeta
25M.O. Gazzeta, MD, Santa Casa de Misericórdia do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leticia G. da Silveira
26L.G. da Silveira, MS, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul/Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cristiano M. Lupo
27C.M. Lupo, MD, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ieda M.M. Laurindo
28I.M. Laurindo, MD, PhD, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Errata - January 01, 2022

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the safety of the methotrexate (MTX)–leflunomide (LEF) combination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), comparing it with other therapeutic schemes involving conventional synthetic (cs-) and biologic (b-) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi).

Methods. Patients with RA starting a treatment course with a csDMARD (without previous use of bDMARD or JAKi) or their first bDMARD/JAKi were followed up in a registry-based, multicentric cohort study in Brazil (BiobadaBrasil). The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs); secondary outcomes included serious infections. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching analysis (PSMA) were used for statistical comparisons.

Results. In total, 1671 patients (5349 patient-years [PY]) were enrolled; 452 patients (1537 PY) received MTX + LEF. The overall incidence of SAEs was 5.6 per 100 PY. The hazard of SAEs for MTX + LEF was not higher than for MTX or LEF (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.76–1.31, P = 0.98). MTX + LEF presented a lower hazard of SAEs (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36–0.88, P = 0.01) and infectious SAEs (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25–0.94, P = 0.03) than bDMARDs/JAKi with MTX or LEF. MTX + LEF presented lower hazard of SAEs than MTX + sulfasalazine (SSZ; aHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.65, P = 0.002). Analysis using PSMA confirmed the results obtained with traditional multivariate Cox analysis.

Conclusion. In our study, MTX + LEF presented a relatively good overall safety profile in comparison to MTX + SSZ and schemes involving advanced therapies in RA.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • antirheumatic drugs
  • biologics
  • drug safety
  • leflunomide
  • methotrexate
  • rheumatoid arthritis

The use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), especially methotrexate (MTX), is the first step in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). After failure of MTX monotherapy, it is possible to step up treatment using combinations of csDMARDs,1,2,3 usually adding sulfasalazine (SSZ) and/or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to oral or injectable MTX. Triple therapy (MTX-SSZ-HCQ combination) has demonstrated similar efficacy in comparison to the combination of MTX and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).4,5 However, previous evidence has questioned the effectiveness of triple therapy in RA,6,7,8 mainly because of the relatively poor tolerability of SSZ.6,7 A possible alternative to triple therapy is the association of MTX and leflunomide (LEF; MTX + LEF), which has shown higher efficacy than monotherapy with MTX9 and similar efficacy compared to MTX + rituximab (RTX).10 However, the MTX-LEF combination has not gained ample acceptance in Europe and North America, mainly due to evidence suggesting higher risk of hepatic11,12 and/or hematologic adverse effects.13 Conversely, Cannon, et al,14 in a large retrospective cohort study, observed no increased incidence of adverse events (AEs) with MTX + LEF in comparison to other schemes of csDMARDs. Other studies on MTX + LEF presented generally small sample sizes,11,15–27 and no previous study has compared the safety of this combination with that of treatment regimens involving bDMARDs or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis). Considering this, in the present study, our aim was to assess the safety of MTX + LEF in a registry-based cohort of patients with RA, comparing it with other therapeutic schemes including csDMARDs and advanced therapies for RA.

METHODS

BiobadaBrasil is a multicentric, observational, longitudinal study following up patients with rheumatic diseases. BiobadaBrasil, which is part of Biobadamerica, is meant to monitor the safety of bDMARDs (and more recently, JAKis), but patients starting treatment with a csDMARD are allowed to be included as a control group.28 It is sponsored by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR),29,30 and involves 32 public and private rheumatology centers from most Brazilian states.28 The main investigators of each center are required to be rheumatology specialists certified by the BSR. The study was approved by the research ethics committee of the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal do Paraná (approval number 17 41 158/2008-08) and all other participating centers before inclusion of the first patient; all patients signed written informed consent.29 The study was performed in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Patients. For the present study, we exclusively selected patients with RA according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria31 or the 2010 European League Against Rheumatism/ACR criteria,32 who were starting a new csDMARD (SSZ, antimalarials, cyclosporine, MTX, or LEF, and had no previous exposure to bDMARDs) or their first bDMARD or JAKi.33 The inclusion of patients in BiobadaBrasil was not necessarily consecutive and was made according to the availability of each study site. The exclusion criterion were overlapping with other connective tissue diseases, except for secondary Sjögren syndrome. Recruitment of patients to BiobadaBrasil started on January 1, 2009.28 Only patients starting a treatment course on or after this date were included in the present analysis. Patients could be registered in the cohort up to 6 months from treatment initiation. Patients with a time gap between starting a treatment course and registration should have been closely followed and have complete records of clinical and demographic features, therapeutic scheme, and AEs during that period.33 After patients’ inclusion, all new data were collected prospectively, characterizing this study as ambispective.

Study factors. Our main objective was to evaluate the safety of MTX + LEF in the treatment of RA in comparison to other schemes. Initially, we compared the hazard of AEs of MTX + LEF and a control group using either MTX or LEF (not in combination with each other). Next, we compared patients using MTX + LEF with those receiving bDMARDs or JAKis along with MTX or LEF. Analysis was also performed comparing MTX + LEF with MTX and with MTX + bDMARDs/JAKis. As a secondary goal, we compared the hazards of AEs of MTX + LEF with those of the combination of MTX and SSZ (MTX + SSZ). In an exploratory analysis, we compared patients receiving bDMARDs/JAKis (with MTX or LEF) with those receiving bDMARDs/JAKis with MTX + LEF. Confounding variables (recorded at baseline) considered here were Disease Activity Score in 28 joints; sex; age; seropositivity (for rheumatoid factor and/or anticyclic citrullinated peptide); disease duration; smoking; diabetes; hypertension; renal failure; ischemic cardiomyopathy; heart failure; history of cancer; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; concurrent use of bDMARDs/JAKis, SSZ, antimalarials (HCQ or chloroquine), and corticosteroids; starting year; hypercholesterolemia; osteoporosis; and hepatitis B and C. Study center was also included as an independent variable in some sensitivity analyses and in all propensity score matching analyses (PSMA).

Outcomes. Information recorded in BiobadaBrasil originated from the clinical records of visits at each rheumatology center. Each of the centers has its own record system. In case of an AE, a local investigator completed a common Web-based platform, actively looking for a list of AEs based on Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities nomenclature.34 Data collection and a record in the databank occurred whenever AEs were detected during regular or unscheduled visits, or when a change in treatment regimen occurred. Relevant AEs were collected both spontaneously and by active physician interrogation about common side effects, as well as by assessment of medical exams and/or review of medical reports. The frequency and interval between the evaluation of laboratory tests was determined by each center, but generally followed current recommendations for drug monitoring.1 There was no prespecified threshold of laboratory abnormalities above/below which the report of an AE was mandatory. Definitions of severity and outcomes of AEs were stated in the BiobadaBrasil protocol.29 A serious AE (SAE) required immediate notification and was defined as a condition that caused death or was life threatening, led to inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of an existing one, or caused important or persistent disability or a congenital abnormality/birth defect. Pregnancy was included among SAEs.29

In the present study, the primary outcome was the incidence of SAEs of any kind. Secondary outcomes were fatal AEs and total (any) AEs, serious and total infections, cardiovascular (CV; including stroke), hepatic, hematologic, respiratory tract, and gastrointestinal AEs. Supplementary Table 1 (available with the online version of this article) describes the codification for each type of AE. Secondary outcomes of special interest were anemia, neutropenia (including pancytopenia), and elevation of hepatic transaminases. Interruption of treatment due to any reason (including those lost to follow-up; except pregnancy or disease remission), inefficacy, and AE or death also served as secondary outcomes (Supplementary Table 2).

Details of data management and quality control are described in Supplementary Text 1 (available with the online version of this article). For the present analysis, only the first course of treatment, after patients’ inclusion in the cohort, was considered for analysis. A treatment course was defined as a period during which the medication scheme did not change, except for dose adjustments. Follow-up was interrupted at moment of the first event. Patients not presenting outcomes during the course of therapy were censored 90 days after treatment interruption, on the day before the start of a new treatment course, at the moment of death or loss to follow-up, or on November 19, 2019 (whichever came first).

Statistical analysis. The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows, version 20.0 (IBM Corp.), and the Survival, MatchIt, and Stddiff packages of R (version 3.3.3, R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The association between categorical variables was tested using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test. Variables with a normal distribution were presented as mean and SD, and the between-group comparisons were performed using t test or ANOVA. Nonnormal quantitative variables were presented as the median and IQR, and between-group comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Incidence-density data (along with 95% CIs) were estimated for most outcomes. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curves and uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were planned to account for possible sources of bias. Results for the primary outcome were confirmed using PSMA.35,36,37 P values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant (all presented P values are 2-tailed). See further details in Supplementary Text 2 (available with the online version of this article).

RESULTS

Description of the sample. Of 2111 patients, 1671 (5348.7 patient-years [PY]) starting follow-up on January 1, 2009, or thereafter, were included in the analysis (Figure 1). Clinical and demographic characteristics of these patients, divided according to the use of MTX and LEF, are described in Table 1. In general, patients receiving treatment with MTX + LEF were more frequently seronegative, more commonly using corticosteroids, and less frequently using SSZ and biologic agents than other groups of patients. Only 2 patients received treatment with cyclosporine (both in the group receiving neither MTX nor LEF). Patients using JAKis were taking tofacitinib exclusively. The median duration of follow-up in the entire sample was 2.17 years (IQR 0.96–4.59 yrs) before censoring or the first SAE. The overall incidence of SAEs (298 in total) was 5.6 per 100 PY. Most SAEs (220/298, 73.8%) were observed after 6 months of follow-up. Total follow-up of patients on MTX + LEF was 1536.6 PY.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flowchart describing the enrollment of patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline clinical and demographic features of the patients followed up in the cohort. The medications represent those used concurrently during the first treatment course.

Comparison of MTX + LEF with MTX/LEF. The comparison of the incidences and hazards of primary and secondary outcomes between MTX + LEF and a category representing use of MTX or LEF is depicted in Table 2. There was no significant increase in the hazard of SAEs, but total AEs presented higher incidence with MTX + LEF in relation to therapy with MTX or LEF. Total CV (univariate analysis) and total infectious events (multivariate analysis) were also more frequent with MTX + LEF. In the multivariate models presented in Table 2, antimalarials were significantly protective for SAEs (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.98, P = 0.04) and total hepatic AEs (aHR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.74, P = 0.012). SSZ was related to higher hazards of SAEs (aHR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49–3.71, P < 0.001), total AEs (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.16–2.20, P = 0.004), total hematologic events (aHR 3.36, 95% CI 1.16–9.75, P = 0.03), and total (aHR 1.81, 95% CI 1.18–2.76, P = 0.006) and serious infections (aHR 2.08, 95% CI 1.06–4.06, P = 0.033). bDMARDs/JAKis were associated with higher hazards of SAEs (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.98, P = 0.006), total AEs (aHR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36–1.90, P < 0.001), and total (aHR 2.10, 95% CI 1.65–2.67, P < 0.001) and serious infections (aHR 2.53, 95% CI 1.61–3.96, P < 0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Results of Cox proportional hazards models testing the association of MTX + LEF with AEs in comparison to a group representing use of MTX or LEF.

In an alternative analysis, we compared the hazard of SAE of MTX + LEF with a category representing the use of MTX, adjusting for potential confounding variables (Supplementary Table 3, available with the online version of this article). Again, there was no significant increase in risk of SAE (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77–1.36, P = 0.89) with MTX + LEF.

Considering the risk of laboratory abnormalities comparing MTX + LEF with the MTX or LEF group, there were numerically higher incidence of anemia (aHR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4–1.2 per 100 PY vs aHR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.6 per 100 PY, respectively), and elevation of hepatic transaminases (aHR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3–1.1 per 100 PY vs aHR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.5 per 100 PY, respectively) in the former group. Univariate HRs for the comparisons listed above were 1.91 (95% CI 0.88–4.13, P = 0.10) and 2.28 (95% CI 0.95–5.48, P = 0.07), respectively. The incidence of neutropenia was 0.1 (95% CI < 0.1–0.5) per 100 PY in the MTX + LEF group compared to 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.4) per 100 PY in the MTX or LEF group (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15–3.66, P = 0.71). However, these analyses may be limited by the small number of events recorded (anemia, elevation of hepatic transaminases, and neutropenia represented only 30, 22, and 10 events, respectively).

MTX + LEF vs bDMARDs/JAKi (with MTX or LEF). Table 3 shows the comparison of the hazards of primary and secondary outcomes between MTX + LEF and the combination of bDMARDs or JAKi with MTX or LEF (reference category). The patients’ features are described in Supplementary Table 4 (available with the online version of this article). There was a significant reduction in the hazards of SAEs, and total and serious infections with MTX + LEF compared to the reference group. Figure 2 shows the comparison of the cumulative incidence of SAEs between the groups. Exclusively comparing patients receiving MTX + LEF with those on MTX + bDMARDs/tofacitinib, similar results were observed (Supplementary Table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Results of Cox proportional hazards models comparing the hazard of AEs of MTX + LEF vs biologic agents/JAK inhibitor (combined with either MTX or LEF).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier curves comparing the cumulative incidence of serious adverse events between patients taking MTX + LEF and those taking bDMARDs/JAKis with MTX or LEF. The vertical traces represent censored patients. bDMARD: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; JAKi: Janus kinase inhibitor; LEF: leflunomide; MTX: methotrexate.

MTX + LEF vs MTX + SSZ. Supplementary Table 6 (available with the online version of this article) describes the patients’ features and Supplementary Table 7 compares the hazards of SAEs and secondary outcomes of MTX + LEF and MTX + SSZ. A reduction in the hazards of SAEs (aHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16–0.65, P = 0.002) and total hematologic events (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08–0.90, P = 0.03) was observed with the use of MTX + LEF.

Analysis of drug survival. The comparison of hazard of interruption of treatment is shown in Supplementary Table 8 (available with the online version of this article). MTX + LEF was associated with lower hazards of interruption as a result of AEs or death (aHR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17–0.58, P < 0.001) and for any reason (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.95, P = 0.02; Figure 3) in comparison to bDMARDs/JAKi (with MTX or LEF). There was no difference in the hazard of interruption because of inefficacy (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62–1.12, P = 0.24). MTX + LEF was related to lower hazards of therapy interruption for any reason (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.98, P = 0.04) and because of AEs (aHR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.96, P = 0.04) in comparison to MTX + SSZ.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier curves comparing the survival of treatment course between patients taking MTX + LEF and those using bDMARDs/JAKis (with MTX or LEF). The vertical traces represent censored patients. bDMARD: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; JAKi: Janus kinase inhibitor; LEF: leflunomide; MTX: methotrexate.

MTX + LEF vs MTX/LEF among patients treated with bDMARDs or JAKi. Considering the relatively large number (n = 257) of patients on MTX + LEF along with bDMARDs/JAKi (MLB/J group), we compared these patients with those also using bDMARDs/JAKi, but with MTX or LEF (reference category). Patients’ features are described in Supplementary Table 9 (available with the online version of this article). SAEs (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03–1.92, P = 0.03), total AEs (aHR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00–1.46, P = 0.05), and total CV events (aHR 2.04, 95% CI 1.21–3.41, P = 0.007) presented higher incidence in the MLB/J group, whereas serious infections (HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99–2.29, P = 0.06) tended to occur more frequently in the MLB/J group than in the reference category (Supplementary Table 10, available with the online version of this article).

Sensitivity analyses. We performed different sensitivity analyses, removing possible preset combinations of MTX + LEF eventually transposed to the current treatment course, controlling the analysis for treatment center and for individual bDMARD/JAKi used (Supplementary Text 3 and Supplementary Tables 11–13, available with the online version of this article), confirming the results previously presented. A comparison of hazard of SAE between MTX + LEF and each individual bDMARD/JAKi (with and without MTX or LEF) is shown in Supplementary Table 14. The tests of the proportional hazard assumption are described in Supplementary Text 3 and in Supplementary Figure 1.

The results obtained with traditional multivariate Cox methods were reevaluated using PSMA (see Supplementary Data 1, available with the online version of this article), and the results of both types of analyses were very similar.

DISCUSSION

In the present study, the combination of MTX and LEF presented a safety profile comparable to that of the uncombined use of both drugs. Despite the increased frequency of total AEs (mainly infections and CV events), the incidence of serious infections, serious CV events, and total SAEs was not significantly changed with the combination. Comparing MTX + LEF with biologic agents/JAKi (plus MTX or LEF), there were reductions of 50–60% in the hazard of SAEs and serious infections. The incidence of treatment interruption (especially because of AEs) was also lower with MTX + LEF, suggesting that this combination has an acceptable safety profile in patients with RA who fail treatment with monotherapy or other combinations of csDMARDs. However, among patients using bDMARDs, concomitant use of MTX and LEF was associated with higher hazard of SAEs in univariate analysis.

The efficacy of the MTX-LEF combination in RA has been demonstrated in 2 RCTs, showing superiority compared to MTX alone9 and suggesting equivalence with MTX plus low-dose RTX10 in patients failing therapy with MTX. However, results from the CareRA trial failed to demonstrate better efficacy of the MTX-LEF-prednisone combination in comparison to MTX plus prednisone in DMARD-naïve patients with RA.38 In these 3 RCTs, there was no increase in the risk of SAEs with MTX + LEF.9,10,38 The safety profile of MTX + LEF has also been evaluated in observational11,12,14–23,25–27,39 and noncontrolled experimental studies,24,29,40,41,42,43 but most of these studies followed up patients for < 1 year. The largest study to date is the retrospective cohort based on a healthcare-system database by Cannon, et al,14 including 2048 patients (1415 PYs) on MTX + LEF. This study found even a lower incidence of reported AEs with MTX + LEF in relation to other combinations involving these drugs. On the other hand, Curtis, et al11 observed a 4-fold increase in the hazard of elevation of transaminases ≥ the 2-fold upper limit of normal with MTX (≥ 7.5 mg/d) + LEF (20 mg/d). These results were similar to those observed in the RCT by Kremer, et al.9 Lee, et al,12 in a prospective cross-sectional study, observed a higher prevalence ratio of liver-silent fibrosis measured by elastography in patients with MTX + LEF, and correlated it with the cumulative dose of LEF. In our study, the incidence of serious and nonserious hepatic AEs (including elevation of liver enzymes) was only numerically higher with MTX + LEF, but the number of events was smaller than expected and conclusions on hepatic safety cannot be drawn from our data.

Hematologic AEs (mainly neutropenia and pancytopenia) are other feared complications related to the combination of MTX and LEF. Pancytopenia has been reported to occur in 1 of 4000 patients under LEF treatment and in 1 of 575–822 patients with the MTX-LEF combination.13 In the present study, we observed a numerically higher hazard of hematologic events with the use of MTX + LEF, but these events represented a relatively small fraction of all SAEs.

In the multivariate survival models presented in this study, the use of SSZ was associated with increased hazard of SAEs, hematologic AE, and serious infections, whereas antimalarials protected for SAEs and reduced the incidence of hepatic events. MTX + SSZ was associated with higher hazard of AE-related interruption of treatment as well as higher hazard of SAEs in comparison to the MTX-LEF association. These analyses were limited by the small number of patients using SSZ (n = 70), but our results agree with previous evidence suggesting low tolerability of SSZ in RA in settings outside clinical trials.6,7,8

Our study has several strengths. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest cohort study (in terms of number of PYs) of individuals on treatment with MTX + LEF, and the first to compare its safety with schemes involving bDMARDs. Quality of data was regularly checked in this multicentric registry-based study. We performed several sensitivity analyses to reduce the risk of selection bias (including “immortal time bias” by comparing only new-onset MTX-LEF combinations with novel combinations of bDMARDs/JAKi + csDMARDs) and confounding bias. The results obtained with traditional multivariate survival analyses were reconfirmed using PSMA.

The present study also has limitations. Inclusion of patients in the cohort and the choice of therapeutic regimens were decisions of the investigators of each center, creating room for selection and channeling bias. A retrospective follow-up period was permitted up to 6 months after the start of a treatment course. This may possibly act in favor of selection of schemes that survived the initial months of therapy. However, a relatively large number of SAEs (26.2%) were recorded within the first 6 months of follow-up, and excluding patients with < 6 months of follow-up (whose SAEs could have been retrospectively recorded) did not change the results significantly (see Supplementary Text 3, available with the online version of this article).

Further limitations of this study include the fact that, despite the use of multivariate analysis, unaccounted residual confounding may still affect hazard estimates. Our data bank has no record of dosing and route of administration of DMARDs, which, especially in the case of the combination of MTX and LEF, are factors that may affect the incidence of AEs. Some analyses presented in this article were limited by the reduced number of patients taking SSZ. The number of patients on non–antitumor necrosis factor bDMARDs and JAKis is also small, reducing the reliability of specific analyses with these subgroups of drugs. The centers participating in this study were all located in Brazil, a multiethnic South American developing country; this may have an effect on the external validity of the results. We observed a lower-than-expected number of patients with elevation of hepatic transaminases, indicating that subclinical hepatic events were probably underreported in this study. There was no fixed schedule or predefined thresholds above or below which laboratory abnormalities should have been reported, and minor hematologic AEs may also have been subnotified.

Our results suggest that the combination of MTX + LEF may present a relatively good safety and tolerability profile in comparison to MTX + SSZ and schemes involving advanced therapies in RA. Further studies performed in different clinical and sociodemographic settings are necessary to confirm these findings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank Patrícia D. Cabral for her valuable work of data quality control.

Footnotes

  • This study is supported by funds from the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology, with funds from the different pharmaceutical companies marketing biological compounds in Brazil (www.reumatologia.org.br/institucional). The sponsor or any pharmaceutical company had no role in the design or conduct of the study, in the preparation or review of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish it.

  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

  • Accepted for publication April 20, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Saag KG,
    3. Bridges SL Jr, Akl EA,
    4. Bannuru RR,
    5. Sullivan MC, et al.
    2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016;68:1-26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Smolen JS,
    2. Landewé RB,
    3. Bijlsma JW,
    4. Burmester GR,
    5. Dougados M,
    6. Kerschbaumer A, et al.
    EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685-99.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mota LM,
    2. Kakehasi AM,
    3. Gomides AP,
    4. Duarte A,
    5. Cruz BA,
    6. Brenol CV, et al.
    2017 recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Adv Rheumatol 2018;58:2.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Moreland LW,
    2. O’Dell JR,
    3. Paulus HE,
    4. Curtis JR,
    5. Bathon JM,
    6. St Clair EW, et al.
    A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2824-35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. O’Dell JR,
    2. Mikuls TR,
    3. Taylor TH,
    4. Ahluwalia V,
    5. Brophy M,
    6. Warren SR, et al.
    Therapies for active rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure. N Engl J Med 2013;369:307-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Gomides APM,
    2. de Albuquerque CP,
    3. Santos ABV,
    4. Amorim RBC,
    5. Bértolo MB,
    6. Júnior PL, et al.
    Causes of synthetic disease-modifying drug discontinuation in rheumatoid arthritis: data from a large real-life cohort. PLoS One 2019;14:e0213219.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Erhardt DP,
    2. Cannon GW,
    3. Teng CC,
    4. Mikuls TR,
    5. Curtis JR,
    6. Sauer BC.
    Low persistence rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with triple therapy and adverse drug events associated with sulfasalazine. Arthritis Care Res 2019;71:1326-35.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Curtis JR,
    2. Palmer JL,
    3. Reed GW,
    4. Greenberg J,
    5. Pappas DA,
    6. Harrold LR, et al.
    Real-world outcomes associated with triple therapy versus TNFi/MTX therapy. Arthritis Care Res 2020 May 6 (E-pub ahead of print).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kremer JM,
    2. Genovese MC,
    3. Cannon GW,
    4. Caldwell JR,
    5. Cush JJ,
    6. Furst DE, et al.
    Concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:726-33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Wijesinghe H,
    2. Galappatthy P,
    3. de Silva R,
    4. Seneviratne SL,
    5. Saravanamuttu U,
    6. Udagama P, et al.
    Leflunomide is equally efficacious and safe compared to low dose rituximab in refractory rheumatoid arthritis given in combination with methotrexate: results from a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:310.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Curtis JR,
    2. Beukelman T,
    3. Onofrei A,
    4. Cassell S,
    5. Greenberg JD,
    6. Kavanaugh A, et al.
    Elevated liver enzyme tests among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis treated with methotrexate and/or leflunomide. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:43-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lee SW,
    2. Park HJ,
    3. Kim BK,
    4. Han KH,
    5. Lee SK,
    6. Kim SU, et al.
    Leflunomide increases the risk of silent liver fibrosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. Arthritis Res Ther 2012;14:R232.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. McEwen J,
    2. Purcell PM,
    3. Hill RL,
    4. Calcino LJ,
    5. Riley CG.
    The incidence of pancytopenia in patients taking leflunomide alone or with methotrexate. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16:65-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cannon GW,
    2. Holden WL,
    3. Juhaeri J,
    4. Dai W,
    5. Scarazzini L,
    6. Stang P.
    Adverse events with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD): a cohort study of leflunomide compared with other DMARD. J Rheumatol 2004;31:1906-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Alves JA,
    2. Fialho SC,
    3. Morato EF,
    4. Castro GR,
    5. Zimmermann AF,
    6. Ribeiro GG, et al.
    Liver toxicity is rare in rheumatoid arthritis patients using combination therapy with leflunomide and methotrexate. Rev Bras Reumatol 2011;51:141-4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Dendooven A,
    2. De Rycke L,
    3. Verhelst X,
    4. Mielants H,
    5. Veys EM,
    6. De Keyser F.
    Leflunomide and methotrexate combination therapy in daily clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:833-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    1. Antony T,
    2. Jose VM,
    3. Paul BJ,
    4. Thomas T.
    Efficacy and safety of leflunomide alone and in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis. Indian J Med Sci 2006;60:318-26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    1. Chopra A,
    2. Saluja M,
    3. Lagu-Joshi V,
    4. Sarmukadam S.
    Leflunomide (Arava) is a useful DMARD in Indian (Asian) patients: a clinic-based observational study of 1-year treatment. Clin Rheumatol 2008;27:1039-44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    1. Kaul A,
    2. O’Reilly DT,
    3. Slack RK,
    4. Collins D,
    5. Walmsley J,
    6. Duke O, et al.
    Tolerability of methotrexate and leflunomide combination therapy for inflammatory arthritis in routine clinical practice: results of a four-centre study. Rheumatology 2008;47:1430-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    1. Cubides MF,
    2. Fernandez Avila DG,
    3. Santos Moreno P,
    4. Jaimes D,
    5. Reyes E,
    6. Londoño J, et al.
    Use of leflunomide plus methotrexate combination in a group of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis in Colombia. It’s not so bad! Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69 Suppl 3:684.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.
    1. Hensley G,
    2. Karpouzas GA.
    Good long-term tolerance of methotrexate plus leflunomide in minority patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69 Suppl 3:216.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.
    1. Ahmad NM,
    2. Farman S,
    3. Saeed MA,
    4. Hameed R,
    5. Umair M,
    6. Ghafoor E.
    Leflunomide in Pakistani patients with rheumatoid arthritis: prospective study in daily rheumatology practice. Int J Rheum Dis 2011;14:48-54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Bhatia J,
    3. Gupta SK.
    Risk of hepatotoxicity with add-on leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arzneimittelforschung 2011;61:312-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Londono J,
    2. Santos AM,
    3. Santos PI,
    4. Cubidez MF,
    5. Guzman C,
    6. Valle-Oñate R.
    Therapeutic efficacy and safety of methotrexate + leflunomide in Colombian patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to conventional treatment. Rev Bras Reumatol 2012;52:837-45.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Bird P,
    2. Griffiths H,
    3. Tymms K,
    4. Nicholls D,
    5. Roberts L,
    6. Arnold M, et al.
    The SMILE study -- safety of methotrexate in combination with leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2013;40:228-35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.
    1. Abasolo L,
    2. Leon L,
    3. Rodriguez-Rodriguez L,
    4. Tobias A,
    5. Rosales Z,
    6. Maria Leal J, et al.
    Safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis patients in real-life conditions. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2015;44:506-13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hodkinson B,
    2. Magomero KR,
    3. Tikly M.
    Combination leflunomide and methotrexate in refractory rheumatoid arthritis: a biologic sparing approach. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2016;8:172-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Titton DC,
    2. Silveira IG,
    3. Louzada-Junior P,
    4. Hayata AL,
    5. Carvalho HM,
    6. Ranza R, et al.
    Brazilian biologic registry: BiobadaBrasil implementation process and preliminary results. Rev Bras Reumatol 2011;51:152-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Brazilian Society of Rheumatology
    . Manual BiobadaBrasil versão 2.1. [Internet. Accessed June 14, 2021.] Available from: https://biobadaser.ser.es/biobadamerica/Brasil/cgi-bin/upload/archivo.aspx?id=10
  30. 30.↵
    1. Carmona L,
    2. de la Vega M,
    3. Ranza R,
    4. Casado G,
    5. Titton DC,
    6. Descalzo MÁ, et al.
    BIOBADASER, BIOBADAMERICA, and BIOBADADERM: safety registers sharing commonalities across diseases and countries. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32 Suppl 85:163-7.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Arnett FC,
    2. Edworthy SM,
    3. Bloch DA,
    4. McShane DJ,
    5. Fries JF,
    6. Cooper NS, et al.
    The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315-24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Aletaha D,
    2. Neogi T,
    3. Silman AJ,
    4. Funovits J,
    5. Felson DT,
    6. Bingham CO III, et al.
    2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:2569-81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Brazilian Society of Rheumatology
    . Criteria for patient inclusion – BiobadaBrasil. [Internet. Accessed June 14, 2021.] Available from: www.reumatologia.org.br/biobadabrasil/criterios-para-inclusao-de-pacientes-biobadabrasil
  34. 34.↵
    1. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)
    . Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). [Internet. Accessed June 14, 2021.] Available from: www.meddra.org
  35. 35.↵
    1. Austin PC.
    A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med 2014;33:1057-69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Austin PC.
    Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011;10:150-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Ho DE,
    2. Imai K,
    3. King G,
    4. Stuart EA.
    MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw 2011;42:1-28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Stouten V,
    2. Westhovens R,
    3. Pazmino S,
    4. De Cock D,
    5. Van der Elst K,
    6. Joly J, et al.
    Effectiveness of different combinations of DMARDs and glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year results of CareRA. Rheumatology 2019;58:2284-94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Ding CZ,
    2. Yao Y,
    3. Feng XB,
    4. Fang Y,
    5. Zhao C,
    6. Wang Y.
    Clinical analysis of Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with leflunomide and methotrexate combined with different dosages of glucocorticoid. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2012;73:123-33.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Weinblatt ME,
    2. Kremer JM,
    3. Coblyn JS,
    4. Maier AL,
    5. Helfgott SM,
    6. Morrell M, et al.
    Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of combination treatment with methotrexate and leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1322-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Xiang N,
    2. Li XM,
    3. Zhang MJ,
    4. Zhao DB,
    5. Zhu P,
    6. Zuo XX, et al.
    Total glucosides of paeony can reduce the hepatotoxicity caused by methotrexate and leflunomide combination treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis. Int Immunopharmacol 2015;28:802-7.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Samreen S,
    2. Salim B,
    3. Nasim A.
    Safety of methotrexate and leflunomide as a combination therapy in patients of rheumatoid arthritis. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2017;67:988-95.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Kremer J,
    2. Genovese M,
    3. Cannon GW,
    4. Caldwell J,
    5. Cush J,
    6. Furst DE, et al.
    Combination leflunomide and methotrexate (MTX) therapy for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis failing MTX monotherapy: open-label extension of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. J Rheumatol 2004;31:1521-31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary material accompanies the online version of this article.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 48, Issue 10
1 Oct 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Safety of the Methotrexate–leflunomide Combination in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Multicentric, Registry-based, Cohort Study (BiobadaBrasil)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Safety of the Methotrexate–leflunomide Combination in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Multicentric, Registry-based, Cohort Study (BiobadaBrasil)
Markus Bredemeier, Roberto Ranza, Adriana M. Kakehasi, Aline Ranzolin, Inês G. da Silveira, Ana C.M. Ribeiro, David C. Titton, André L.S. Hayata, Hellen M.S. Carvalho, Bárbara S. Kahlow, Vander Fernandes, Paulo Louzada, Manoel B. Bértolo, Ângela L.B.P. Duarte, José C. Macieira, José R.S. Miranda, Geraldo R.C. Pinheiro, Reginaldo B. Teodoro, Marcelo M. Pinheiro, Valéria Valim, Ivânio A. Pereira, Maria F.L.C. Sauma, Gláucio R.W. de Castro, Laurindo F. da Rocha, Sâmia A.S. Studart, Morgana O. Gazzeta, Leticia G. da Silveira, Cristiano M. Lupo, Ieda M.M. Laurindo
The Journal of Rheumatology Oct 2021, 48 (10) 1519-1527; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201248

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Safety of the Methotrexate–leflunomide Combination in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Multicentric, Registry-based, Cohort Study (BiobadaBrasil)
Markus Bredemeier, Roberto Ranza, Adriana M. Kakehasi, Aline Ranzolin, Inês G. da Silveira, Ana C.M. Ribeiro, David C. Titton, André L.S. Hayata, Hellen M.S. Carvalho, Bárbara S. Kahlow, Vander Fernandes, Paulo Louzada, Manoel B. Bértolo, Ângela L.B.P. Duarte, José C. Macieira, José R.S. Miranda, Geraldo R.C. Pinheiro, Reginaldo B. Teodoro, Marcelo M. Pinheiro, Valéria Valim, Ivânio A. Pereira, Maria F.L.C. Sauma, Gláucio R.W. de Castro, Laurindo F. da Rocha, Sâmia A.S. Studart, Morgana O. Gazzeta, Leticia G. da Silveira, Cristiano M. Lupo, Ieda M.M. Laurindo
The Journal of Rheumatology Oct 2021, 48 (10) 1519-1527; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201248
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
    • ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUGS
BIOLOGICS
DRUG SAFETY
LEFLUNOMIDE
METHOTREXATE
RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Rural-Dwelling Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Risk of Myocardial Infarction Hospitalization: An Observational Study Using the National Inpatient Sample
  • Development of an Application for Self-Monitoring to Empower Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis (MyRA)
  • Sex Differences in Rheumatoid Arthritis: New Insights From Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcome Perspectives
Show more Rheumatoid Arthritis

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • antirheumatic drugs
  • biologics
  • DRUG SAFETY
  • LEFLUNOMIDE
  • METHOTREXATE
  • rheumatoid arthritis

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire