Treatment with leflunomide slows radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis: results from three randomized controlled trials of leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Preliminary evaluation in rheumatoid arthritis activity in patients treated with TNF-alpha blocker plus methotrexate versus methotrexate or leflunomide alone. Comparative assessment of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, by dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. 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. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide alone and in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis. Concomitant leflunomide therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite stable doses of methotrexate. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of leflunomide in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide, a new disease-modifying drug for treating active rheumatoid arthritis in methotrexate-controlled phase II clinical trial. Weekly dose of leflunomide for the treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis: an open pilot comparative study. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. European Leflunomide Study Group. Slowing of disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients during long-term treatment with leflunomide or sulfasalazine. Function and health-related quality of life: results from a randomized controlled trial of leflunomide versus methotrexate or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. When a DMARD fails, should patients switch to sulfasalazine or add sulfasalazine to continuing leflunomide? Safety and effectiveness of leflunomide in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide 10 mg versus 20 mg once daily in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: multinational double-blind, randomized trial. Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate. Utilization of Leflunomide in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial Investigator Group. Eight versus 16-week re-evaluation period in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with leflunomide or methotrexate accompanied by moderate dose prednisone. Improved functional ability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis--longterm treatment with leflunomide versus sulfasalazine. European Leflunomide Study Group. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide: two year follow up of a double blind, placebo controlled trial versus sulfasalazine. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Combination of cyclosporine and leflunomide versus single therapy in severe rheumatoid arthritis.
To determine whether treatment with leflunomide (LEF), methotrexate (MTX), or sulfasalazine (SSZ) for 6-12 months retards progression of radiographic damage and to identify clinical variables that correlate with radiographic progression.
                Radiographs of the hands and feet were performed at baseline and at the end of study or early exit in 3 randomized controlled trials. Protocol US301 was a 12-month controlled trial of LEF or MTX treatment compared with placebo in 482 patients randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio. Protocol MN301 compared 6 months of LEF or SSZ treatment with placebo in 358 patients, randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio, with continued blinded treatment in the active control arms for 12 months. Protocol MN302 compared 12 months of LEF treatment with MTX in 999 patients. Radiographs were blinded for sequence and treatment and were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for missing data.
                LEF, MTX, and SSZ treatment resulted in statistically significantly less radiographic progression compared with placebo at 6 and 12 months: for protocol US301, LEF versus placebo P = 0.0007 and MTX versus placebo P = 0.0196; for protocol MN301, LEF versus placebo P = 0.0004 and SSZ versus placebo P = 0.0484. The effect of LEF treatment was similar to that of MTX and SSZ.
                These are the first 6- and 12-month randomized placebo- and active drug-controlled trials to demonstrate retardation of radiographic progression by a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), LEF, as well as 2 commonly used DMARDs, MTX and SSZ. Methotrexate (MTX) is a first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Leflunomide (LEF) and the biologic agents entered the arsenal of DMARDs in 1998. Therapeutic properties of new drugs are still under survey. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of MTX, LEF and a biologic agent (TNF-alpha blocker) combined with MTX in reducing disease activity in RA. Seventy-eight patients with active RA underwent a 24-week treatment with MTX 15 mg/week (30 pts), LEF 20 mg/day (30 pts) or a TNF-alpha blocker (etanercept 25 mg 2x weekly or infliximab 3 mg/kg in the week 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter) plus MTX 15 mg/week (18 pts). Only patients with RA resistant to MTX were included in groups receiving LEF or a biologic agent. During follow-up, patients' characteristics, disease characteristics, and clinical and laboratory data were registered. RA activity was evaluated using the ESR, tender and swollen joint counts, the duration of morning stiffness, disease activity score-28 (DAS 28), visual analogue scale (VAS) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment efficacy was demonstrated with ACR 20, 50 and 70 criteria. All groups revealed statistically significant improvement in all disease activity parameters measured. The percentage improvements were similar in groups treated with MTX and LEF and--except for VAS--significantly greater in the group treated with a biologic agent. Disease activity assessed by DAS 28 decreased significantly in all groups: the results were comparable in groups treated with MTX and LEF and significantly more prominent in the group treated with a TNF-alpha blocker. The ACR 20, 50 and 70 improvements amounted, respectively: 100, 50 and 7% in MTX group 87, 60 and 13% in LEF group and 100, 83 and 50% in a biologic agent group. The study revealed equal effectiveness of MTX and LEF in reducing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy of a TNF-alpha blocker combined with MTX was higher than that of each conventional DMARDs, especially with regard to ACR 70 criteria (considerable improvement after treatment). LEF was equally effective as MTX in patients unable to continue MTX treatment due to the drug's ineffectiveness. Ethical constraints on the conduct of placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapies for serious chronic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), indicate the need for discerning methods to assess treatment effect in active-controlled clinical trials. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DEMRI) is a sensitive technique for the detection of synovial inflammation in RA. Therefore, this investigation was undertaken to evaluate DEMRI as an efficacy assessment tool for differentiating treatment effect in a randomized, active-controlled trial comparing leflunomide and methotrexate.
                Patients with active RA (n = 39) were randomized in a 2-center, prospective, double-blind clinical trial to receive either leflunomide (n = 18) or methotrexate (n = 21) therapy for 4 months. DEMRI scans were obtained at baseline and at 4 months, and the initial rate of enhancement (IRE) and the maximal signal intensity (SI) enhancement (ME) were calculated from the SI curves. Clinical improvement was assessed by conventional outcome measures.
                Thirty-four patients (17 treated with leflunomide and 17 with methotrexate) had usable baseline and end point DEMRI scans. Leflunomide treatment was associated with a significantly greater improvement in IRE compared with methotrexate treatment (P < 0.05). Average values of ME indicated reduction of inflammation with both leflunomide and methotrexate. The improvement in clinical signs and symptoms, as measured by traditional assessments, was comparable for both active treatments.
                Results of this study validate the sensitivity of DEMRI in detecting inflammatory changes in active RA in response to treatment. Improvement in synovial inflammation as measured by IRE was significantly better with leflunomide than with methotrexate over 4 months of therapy. To obtain additional safety and efficacy data on leflunomide (LEF) treatment in combination with methotrexate (MTX) therapy in an open-label extension study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                Following a 24 week, randomized, double-blind trial of adding placebo (PLA) or LEF to stable MTX therapy, patients could enter a 24 week extension. Subjects randomized to LEF and MTX continued treatment [(LEF/LEF) + MTX]. Subjects randomized to PLA and MTX switched to LEF (10 mg/day, no loading dose) and MTX [(PLA/LEF) + MTX]. The double-blind regarding initial randomization was maintained.
                For subjects in the extension phase, American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responder rates for the (LEF/LEF) + MTX group were maintained from Week 24 (57/96, 59.4%) to Week 48 (53/96, 55.2%). ACR20 responder rates improved in patients switched to LEF from PLA at Week 24 [(PLA/LEF) + MTX] from 25.0% (24/96) at Week 24 to 57.3% (55/96) at Week 48. Patients in the extension who switched from PLA to LEF without a loading dose exhibited a lower incidence of elevated transaminases compared to patients initially randomized to LEF. Diarrhea and nausea were less frequent during the open-label extension in patients who did not receive a LEF loading dose.
                Response to therapy was maintained to 48 weeks of treatment in patients who continued to receive LEF and MTX during the extension. Importantly, ACR20 response rates after 24 weeks of LEF therapy were similar between patients switched from PLA to LEF without loading dose, and those who received a loading does of LEF (100 mg/day x 2 days) at randomization. Fewer adverse events were reported in patients switched to LEF without a loading dose. Rheumatoid arthritis patients who develop refractoriness are left with no alternatives other than leflunomide and costly biological response modifiers. Leflunomide, though effective, was associated with adverse events and has not been extensively studied in the Indian population.
                Determination of safety and efficacy of leflunomide alone and if not useful, in combination with methotrexate in patients refractory to conventional disease-modifying agents.
                Open labeled clinical trial with leflunomide [100 mg, OD x 3 days followed by 20 mg, OD x 6 months], if no improvement at three months, combined with methotrexate [5-7.5 mg, OD x 3 months] at a tertiary care hospital.
                The primary endpoint in the improvement in EULAR criteria and secondary endpoints were patient and physician global evaluation, incidence of remission and biochemical and clinical adverse events.
                Chi square test or Fisher's exact test and parametric and non-parametric repeat measure ANOVA were used for analysis.
                Among 84 patients who were included in the study, leflunomide showed improvement and remission in 52 [62%] and 6 [7%] in six months, by intention to treat analysis. Adverse events were observed in 15, discontinuation in 5 and 24 dropped out. With combination in 11 patients, there was improvement and remission in nine [91%] and one [9%] after three months. Adverse events were observed in six and one discontinued.
                If regular monitoring of hepatic function and hematological parameters are performed, leflunomide is an effective and safe drug in the Indian population in resistant rheumatoid arthritis patients, especially if used alone. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs may confer greater benefits when combined with the antimetabolite methotrexate.
                To evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide versus placebo when added to ongoing, stable-dose methotrexate therapy in patients with persistently active rheumatoid arthritis.
                24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
                20 centers in the United States and Canada.
                Patients with persistent rheumatoid arthritis, as defined by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, despite receiving methotrexate for at least 6 months.
                Leflunomide or matching placebo added to existing methotrexate therapy.
                The primary efficacy variable was the rate of achievement of 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at the end of the study. The Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index was assessed at each visit, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form was completed as an end point analysis.
                In the leflunomide and placebo groups, 46.2% and 19.5% of patients, respectively, met ACR20 criteria at 24 weeks (P < 0.001). Clinical improvement was demonstrated by statistically significant mean changes in individual components of the ACR20 response criteria. Discontinuation rates were similar in both treatment groups (23.1% in the leflunomide group and 24.8% in the placebo group), as were the overall incidences of adverse events (89.2% vs. 89.5%, respectively). Adverse events were predominantly mild or moderate.
                Combination therapy with leflunomide and methotrexate provides statistically significant clinical benefit in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who are receiving methotrexate therapy. Leflunomide plus methotrexate is generally well tolerated and can be used safely with appropriate liver enzyme and hematologic monitoring. The efficacy and safety of leflunomide (LEF) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were evaluated and the comparison with methotrexate's (MTX's) was performed in a 12-week, single-blind, randomized, parallel trial for treating 81 patients with RA. There were 56 cases in LEF group and 25 cases in MTX group. The dose of LEF was 20 mg per day and MTX 15 mg per week. All patients took oxaproxin simultaneously at the 4th to 6th week after the trail. The results showed that the general effective rate and notable effective rate were 94.64% and 73.21% in LEF group, 72% and 44% in MTX group, respectively, with the differences being statistically significant between the two groups (P < 0.05). LEF and oxaprozin could obviously improve the symptoms, signs and joint functions. The incidence of side reactions was lower in LEF group (17.86%) than in MTX group (40.00%, P < 0.05). LEF had a good therapeutic effect for RA, especially for refractory RA and had slight side reactions, and could be regarded as a superior immunosuppressive agent used in the treatment of RA and other connective tissue diseases. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide in comparison with methotrexate (MTX) on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China.
                Five hundred and sixty-six patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive leflunomide at 20 mg once daily or MTX at 15 mg once weekly in a controlled trial. Five hundred and four patients completed the 12-week treatment and some patients continued the treatment for 24 weeks.
                Both leflunomide and MTX could improve the symptoms, signs, and joint function, but there were no changes in X-ray observations of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In the leflunomide group, the overall rates of effectiveness at 12 weeks and 24 weeks were 86.94% and 92.31% respectively; the rates of remarkable improvement were 64.95% and 79.81% respectively. In the MTX group, the overall rates of effectiveness at 12 weeks and 24 weeks were 84.04% and 83.15% respectively; the rates of remarkable improvement were 56.81% and 75.28% respectively. According to intent-to-treat analysis, the ACR 20% response rates at 12 weeks and 24 weeks in the leflunomide group were 62.54% and 67.18% respectively, compared with 60.08% and 61.32% respectively in MTX group. No statistical differences were shown in the efficacy between the two groups (P > 0.05). The adverse events in the leflunomide group were gastrointestinal symptoms, skin rash, alopecia, nervous system symptoms, decreased leukocyte count, and elevation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Most of these side effects were mild and transient. The incidence of adverse events in the leflunomide group was 16.84%, significantly lower than that in MTX group (28.17%, P = 0.002).
                Leflunomide is effective in the treatment of RA with less adverse events than MTX. Its efficacy is similar to MTX, but the incidence of adverse events and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse events were lower in the leflunomide group than in MTX group. To assess the therapeutic effect of leflunomide in weekly dose of 100 mg in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis.
                Sixteen patients were included (18-72 years, disease duration 2-32 years). Eight patients received a weekly dose of 100 mg of leflunomide and 8 the conventional dose. Current treatment was not modified. All patients underwent a monthly evaluation for one year, applying the 1995 ACR preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis.
                After 2 months, the group treated with the conventional leflunomide dose evidenced a remarkable improvement (7/8 patients achieving ACR 20), while the group receiving the weekly dose, the improvement was not as clearly evident (3/8 patients achieving ACR 20). By the fourth to sixth month, the response was comparable on both groups (6/6 and 6/8 patients achieving ACR 50 in the daily and weekly dose, respectively) and prevailed through the end of the study. There were no statistical differences between groups at any evaluation. Side effects made itself clear in 6 patients in the daily leflunomide group, and 2 patients withdrawn leflunomide because severe gastrointestinal symptoms and hepatotoxicity, respectively. In the group of weekly leflunomide 2 patients presented side effects which disappeared spontaneously.
                The use of leflunomide in a weekly dose of 100 mg proved to have similar therapeutic benefit as that of the conventional scheme and might represent a new option for the treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis patients. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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. 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. To assess the efficacy of leflunomide or methotrexate compared with placebo in improving function and health-related quality of life in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to examine correlations between response status (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology [ACR] response criteria) and improvement in these measures.
                This 52-week, multicenter, doubleblind, controlled trial compared responses to the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), Problem Elicitation Technique (PET), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), and questions regarding work productivity among 3 treatment groups (leflunomide, methotrexate, and placebo). Improvement in the PET top 5 and SF-36 scales and component scores were compared with ACR response rates.
                Clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P<0.0001) improvement in measures of function and heath-related quality of life (MHAQ scores, all scales and disability index of the HAQ, weighted top 5 score of the PET, 5 of 8 scales and physical component score of the SF-36, and work productivity) was seen during treatment with leflunomide in comparison with placebo. Methotrexate administration resulted in significant improvements (P<0.05) in comparison with placebo in the MHAQ scores, HAQ disability index, weighted top 5 score of the PET, physical component score of the SF-36, and bodily pain scale. Compared with methotrexate, leflunomide administration resulted in significantly (P<0.01) more improvement in the MHAQ scores, 5 of 8 scales and disability index of the HAQ, weighted top 5 score of the PET, and 2 of 8 scales and physical component score of the SF-36. Improvements in the PET score, SF-36 physical component score, and work productivity correlated with the ACR responder rates of > or =20% and > or =50% improvement.
                Significant improvements in function and health-related quality of life occurred in patients with RA during treatment with leflunomide or methotrexate. These findings were clinically meaningful and correlated with the ACR response status. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding sulfasalazine to leflunomide treatment compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients with RA with an inadequate response to leflunomide monotherapy.
                Patients with active RA ((DAS28) >3.2) who were enrolled in the first open label phase of the RELIEF study received leflunomide for 24 weeks. Inadequate responders then entered the double blind phase and received a further 24 weeks' treatment with leflunomide (20 mg once daily) plus sulfasalazine (final dose 2 g once daily), or placebo plus sulfasalazine (dose as above). The primary efficacy variable was the DAS28 response rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes were ACR 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates. Adverse events, including standard laboratory tests, were recorded.
                106 inadequate responders entered the double blind phase; 56 received leflunomide plus sulfasalazine, and 50 placebo plus sulfasalazine. In the intention to treat population, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (25/56 (45%)) achieved a DAS28 response than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (17/50 (34%)) (p = 0.179). In week 24 completers, more patients receiving leflunomide plus sulfasalazine (17/56 (30%)) were DAS28 responders than those receiving placebo plus sulfasalazine (10/50 (20%)) (p = 0.081). Comparable numbers in each group were ACR 20% responders; the ACR 50% response rate was significantly higher in the leflunomide plus sulfasalazine group (8.9%) than in the placebo plus sulfasalazine group (0%) (p = 0.038). The safety profiles of both groups were comparable.
                Patient numbers are small and firm conclusions cannot be reached, but a non-significant benefit is indicated for combining leflunomide with sulfasalazine compared with switching to sulfasalazine alone in patients inadequately responding to leflunomide. To assess the safety and effectiveness of leflunomide versus placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated for 6 months.
                Four hundred two patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or leflunomide at 5 mg, 10 mg, or 25 mg daily. A washout period of 6-12 weeks from prior second-line therapy was required.
                Statistically significant improvement in primary and secondary outcome measures, as well as by responder analyses, occurred in the 10-mg and 25-mg dosage groups compared to placebo. Twenty-one patients (7.0%) in the active treatment groups withdrew due to adverse events (AEs). The incidence of AEs was higher with leflunomide than with placebo. Gastrointestinal symptoms, weight loss, allergic reactions, skin rash, and reversible alopecia were more common in the 10-mg and 25-mg dosage groups. The incidence of infections was similar between the treatment and placebo groups; no opportunistic infections were seen. Transient elevations in liver function studies were noted in a small number of patients.
                Leflunomide is effective in daily doses of 10 mg and 25 mg in patients with active RA. Improved efficacy at the 25-mg dose was associated with a higher incidence of AEs. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials using daily doses of 10 mg and 20 mg are under way in the US and Europe to confirm these positive results. To compare the efficacy and safety profile of two daily maintenance doses of leflunomide, 10 mg and 20 mg, for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 402 RA patients were randomized equally to receive daily doses of 10 mg leflunomide (n = 202; loading dose on day 3, 100 mg) or 20 mg leflunomide (n = 200; loading dose on day 1-3, 100 mg) for 24 weeks. The study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the efficacy of 10 mg compared with 20 mg by calculating 95% confidence intervals for differences in changes in tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ DI), comparing these confidence intervals with predefined bounds.
                In the intent-to-treat population, mean improvements at the end-point in the 10 and 20 mg groups respectively were: TJC, -7.57 and -8.89 (P = 0.061); SJC, -6.38 and -6.96 (P = 0.304); and HAQ DI, 0-0.37 and 0-0.49 (P = 0.095). By American College of Rheumatology (ACR) > or =20% criteria, response rates were 49.8 and 56.6% respectively (P = 0.1724). Adverse events (AEs) resulting in treatment withdrawal were higher in the 10 mg (15.3%) than in the 20 mg treatment group (12.0%), as were serious adverse events (SAEs): 12.9 vs 10.0%.
                This study rejected the hypothesis of non-inferiority of 10 mg compared with 20 mg daily maintenance doses of leflunomide. More AEs resulting in treatment discontinuation and SAEs in patients receiving 10 mg leflunomide daily also support a better efficacy profile for the 20 mg daily dose. Three 6-12-month, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials have shown leflunomide (LEF; 20 mg/day, loading dose 100 mg x 3 days) to be effective and safe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis of the North American trial assessed whether the clinical benefit evident at month 12 was sustained over 24 months of treatment with LEF as compared with the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX), an equivalent disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, at 24 months.
                The year-2 cohort, comprising patients continuing into the second year of treatment with > or = 1 dose of study medication and > or = 1 followup visit after week 52, consisted of 235 patients (LEF n = 98; placebo n = 36; MTX n = 101). The mean (+/- SD) maintenance dose of LEF was 19.6 +/- 1.99 mg/day in year 2 and that of MTX was 12.6 +/- 4.69 mg/week. Statistical analyses used an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach. Statistical comparisons of the active treatments only were prospectively defined in the protocol.
                In total, 85% and 79% of LEF and MTX patients, respectively, who entered year 2 completed 24 months of treatment. From month 12 to month 24, the American College of Rheumatology improvement response rates of > or = 20% (LEF 79% versus MTX 67%; P = 0.049), > or = 50% (LEF 56% versus MTX 43%; P = 0.053), and > or = 70% (LEF 26% versus MTX 20%; P = 0.361) were sustained in both of the active treatment groups. The mean change in total Sharp radiologic damage scores at year 2 compared with year 1 and baseline (LEF 1.6 versus MTX 1.2) showed statistically equivalent sustained retardation of radiographic progression in the active treatment groups. Maximal improvements evident at 6 months in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (HAQ DI) and the physical component score of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-item short form were sustained over 12 months and 24 months; improvement in the HAQ DI with LEF4(-0.60) was statistically significantly superior to that with MTX (-0.37) at 24 months (P = 0.005). Over 24 months in the ITT cohort, serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 1.6% of the LEF-treated patients and 3.7% of the MTX-treated patients. Frequently reported adverse events included upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, rash, reversible alopecia, and transient liver enzyme elevations.
                The safety and efficacy of LEF and MTX were maintained over the second year of this 2-year trial. Both active treatments retarded radiographic progression over 24 months. LEF was statistically significantly superior to MTX in improving physical function as measured by the HAQ DI over 24 months of treatment. Results indicate that LEF is a safe and effective initial treatment for active RA, with clinical benefit sustained over 2 years of treatment without evidence of new or increased toxicity. In a step-up approach of DMARD treatment of RA a fast response and an early DMARD switch in the case of non-response is important. Therefore, we performed an open trial in which we compared an 8-week and a 16-week observation period during treatment of RA with MTX or LEF, both given in intensified starting doses and accompanied by moderate dose prednisone. MTX and LEF naïve patients with RA (mean time since diagnosis: 2.3 years) were randomised to receive either LEF in a 3-day-loading dose of 100 mg/day followed by 20 mg/day (n = 19) or MTX intramuscularly in a dose of 25 mg once weekly (n = 21). All patients received concomitant treatment with oral prednisone in an initial dose of 20 mg/day with weekly dose reductions of 5 mg/day. The disease activity was re-evaluated 8 and 16 weeks after the start of the treatment. Mean DAS28 before the start of treatment was 5.36 +/- 0.8 for the MTX-group and 5.46 +/- 0.8 for the LEF-group. After 8 weeks of treatment the DAS28 in the MTX-group was 2.59 +/- 1.0 and 3.16 +/- 0.8 in the LEF group (difference not significant). The mean DAS28 at re-evaluation 16 weeks after the starting of treatment (2.58 +/- 1.5 for the MTX-group and 3.25 +/- 1.16 for the LEF-group) was significantly different neither in between the both treatment groups nor in comparison to the week 8 evaluation. Efficiency of RA treatment with MTX or LEF in intensified doses and in combination with moderate dose prednisone can be sufficiently judged 8 weeks after its initiation. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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. 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.
                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.
                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.
                These long term data confirm that leflunomide is an efficacious and safe disease modifying antirheumatic drug. Leflunomide is a reversible inhibitor of de novo pyrimidine synthesis shown to be effective in a phase 2 trial in 402 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                To compare the efficacy and safety of leflunomide treatment with placebo and methotrexate treatment in patients with active RA.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo, and active-controlled 12-month study.
                Forty-seven university and private rheumatology practices in the United States and Canada.
                Diagnosis of RA by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for duration of 6 months or longer and no previous methotrexate treatment.
                Leflunomide treatment (20 mg/d), placebo, or methotrexate treatment (7.5-15 mg/wk).
                American College of Rheumatology success rate (completed 52 weeks of treatment and met the ACR > or = 20% response criteria), disease progression as assessed by x-ray films, and improvement in function and health-related quality of life using the intent-to-treat population.
                The 482 patients studied were predominantly women (mean age, 54 years; mean disease duration, 6.7 years) for whom a mean of 0.8 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs had failed. The ACR response and success rates for patients receiving leflunomide treatment (52% and 41%, respectively) and methotrexate treatment (46% and 35%, respectively) were significantly higher than those for patients receiving placebo (26% and 19%, respectively) (P<.001), and they were statistically equivalent, with mean time to initial response at 8.4 weeks for patients receiving leflunomide vs 9.5 weeks for patients receiving methotrexate therapy. X-ray analyses demonstrated less disease progression with leflunomide (P=.001) and methotrexate (P = .02) therapy than with placebo. Leflunomide and methotrexate treatment improved measures of physical function and health-related quality of life significantly more than placebo (P<.001 and P<.05, respectively). Common adverse events for patients receiving leflunomide treatment included gastrointestinal complaints, skin rash, and reversible alopecia. Asymptomatic transaminase elevations resulted in treatment discontinuations for 7.1% of patients receiving leflunomide therapy, 1.7% of patients receiving placebo, and 3.3% of patients receiving methotrexate therapy.
                Clinical responses following administration of leflunomide, a new therapeutic agent for the treatment of RA, were statistically superior to those with placebo and equivalent to those with methotrexate treatment. Both active treatments improved signs and symptoms of active RA, delayed disease progression as demonstrated by x-ray films, and improved function and health-related quality of life. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of combination (COMB) of cyclosporine (CSA) and leflunomide (LEF) versus each drug alone, in the treatment of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                One hundred six patients with active RA refractory to at least one disease modifying antirheumatic drug (methotrexate obligatorily) were entered into a 12-month open, prospective trial and were randomly allocated to receive either CSA 2.5 to 5 mg/kg/day, or LEF 20 mg/day, or the combination of both at the same initiating dose.
                The American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) response rates for the 3 groups were COMB 80%, CSA 40%, and LEF 42% (p = 0.001). Combination therapy was also significantly better than CSA and LEF at the more stringent 70% response rate (69% vs 34% vs 30%, respectively; p = 0.001). Comparable Disease Activity Score 28 reduction rates were noted at trial termination for all 3 treatment arms: COMB -2.74 vs CSA -2.53 vs LEF -2.28 (p nonsignificant). Discontinuation rates were more common in LEF vs CSA arm (p = 0.046). No unexpected or serious adverse drug effects were identified in the combination group during the 12-month period.
                The combination of CSA and LEF in patients with refractory RA provided statistically significant benefit in ACR50 and ACR70. Adverse events were not substantially increased.