ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2822

Should We Prefer Leflunomide to Methotrexate in Combination with Biologics? a Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Guillaume Decarriere1, Thomas Barnetche2, Cédric Lukas3, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala4, Bernard Combe5, Jacques Morel6 and Claire I. Daien7, 1Department of Rheumatology, CHU Lapeyronie, Montpellier, France, 2Rheumatology Department, FHU ACRONIM, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France, 3Rheumatology, CHU Lapeyronie and EA2415, Montpellier University, University of Montpellier, France, 4Rheumatology, Nîmes University Hospital and EA2415 Montpellier University, Nîmes, France, 5Rheumatology, University Hospital Lapeyronie, Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 6Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital Lapeyronie, Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 7Department of rheumatology, Lapeyronie Hospital and Montpellier University, Montpellier, France

Meeting: 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Biologics, DMARDs, meta-analysis, methotrexate (MTX) and rheumatoid arthritis, treatment

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Title: 5T089 ACR Abstract: RA–Treatments IV: Strategy (2820–2825)

Session Type: ACR Concurrent Abstract Session

Session Time: 2:30PM-4:00PM

Background/Purpose: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), biologics are more efficient in combination with methotrexate (MTX) than in monotherapy. When MTX cannot be used, others csDMARD can be proposed in combination with biologics. However, the effectiveness of other csDMARD compared to MTX in combination with bDMARD is not clear. The aim of our study was to assess currently available literature on the association of csDMARD with biologics, compared with MTX.

Methods: We systematically searched literature (via Pubmed, Embase and abstracts from ACR and EULAR congresses) for studies that compare effectiveness, retention rate and safety of MTX versus other csDMARD (leflunomide [LEF] or all non-MTX csDMARD) as concomitant therapy with rituximab (RTX), TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, tocilizumab and JAK inhibitor (JAKi). A meta-analysis was performed with RevMan software using an inverse variance approach with fixed or random effects models, depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Data were extracted by one investigator and independently checked by another.

Results: From 3842 articles, the literature search revealed 144 articles and abstracts of potential interest, and further examination resulted in 8 studies fulfilling required criteria for RTX and 10 for TNFi. All of these studies were cohort studies. For tocilizumab, JAKi and abatacept, there were not enough studies to conduct meta-analysis. For patients receiving RTX, who had similar baseline characteristics in the two groups, those treated with LEF had a higher EULAR good response rate than those treated with MTX (n=3250, 5 studies, RR=1.46 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.25;1.70), I²=0%, p<0.001). The variation of DAS28 at 6 months also tended to be higher in patients treated with LEF (-0.18 [-0.38;0.01], n=1449, 2 studies, I²=0%, p=0.07). The risk of adverse events also tended to be lower in patients treated with LEF (n=2718, 4 studies, RR=0.73 [0.52;1.03]; I²=0%, p=0.07).

Regarding patients receiving TNFi, those receiving MTX had a higher EULAR good or moderate response rate than those treated with other csDMARDs (n=1859, 3 studies, RR=0.88 [0.81;0.96]; I²=0%, p=0.004). The change in DAS28 at 6 months was also higher in patients treated by MTX than other csDMARD (-0.28 [-0.51;-0.05]; I²=0%, p=0.02). The risk ratio of discontinuing therapy due to adverse events at 6 months and the risk ratio of serious adverse events were similar between MTX and other csDMARD.

Conclusion: LEF or other csDMARD are safe and efficient for people who are intolerant to MTX to combine with biologics. Whereas MTX appears to be superior than other csDMARD in combination with TNFi, LEF might be superior than MTX in combination with RTX. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm this result.


Disclosure: G. Decarriere, None; T. Barnetche, None; C. Lukas, None; C. Gaujoux-Viala, None; B. Combe, None; J. Morel, None; C. I. Daien, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Decarriere G, Barnetche T, Lukas C, Gaujoux-Viala C, Combe B, Morel J, Daien CI. Should We Prefer Leflunomide to Methotrexate in Combination with Biologics? a Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/should-we-prefer-leflunomide-to-methotrexate-in-combination-with-biologics-a-systematic-review-and-a-meta-analysis/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/should-we-prefer-leflunomide-to-methotrexate-in-combination-with-biologics-a-systematic-review-and-a-meta-analysis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology