Agnes L. Maier

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of combination treatment with methotrexate and leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE To examine the safety and pharmacokinetics of and clinical response to leflunomide, a de novo pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor, when administered to patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have been receiving long-term methotrexate therapy. METHODS This was an open-label, 52-week study in which 30 patients with RA that remained active despite therapy with methotrexate at 17+/-4 mg/week (mean +/- SD) for > or =6 months were given leflunomide, 10-20 mg/day. Patients were assessed for adverse effects, pharmacokinetic measurements of leflunomide and methotrexate, and clinical response by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response criteria. RESULTS Twenty-three patients completed 1 year of treatment. No significant pharmacokinetic interactions between leflunomide and methotrexate were noted. This combination therapy was generally well tolerated clinically, with the exception of elevations of liver enzyme levels. Seven patients withdrew from the treatment regimen: 2 withdrawals were voluntary, 3 were due to persistent elevation of plasma transaminase levels, and 2 were due to lack of efficacy. Of the patients, 16 (53%) met ACR 20% response criteria. Two met ACR criteria for remission after 1 year. CONCLUSION The combination of methotrexate and leflunomide has therapeutic potential in RA.

Use of the T-SPOT.TB Assay to Detect Latent Tuberculosis Infection Among Rheumatic Disease Patients on Immunosuppressive Therapy

Objective. We evaluated the T-SPOT.TB assay to identify latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in patients with rheumatic disease receiving immunosuppressive medication including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. Methods. A total of 200 patients seen in the Arthritis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital were enrolled for study. Most patients were US-born women with rheumatoid arthritis. A medical history was obtained using a questionnaire, whole blood was drawn for the T-SPOT.TB assay, and tuberculin skin testing (TST) was performed. Results. Both tests were performed on 179 subjects, who had no history of a positive TST. All subjects had a strong response to the T-SPOT.TB test positive control, and there were no indeterminate results. Among these 179 subjects, 2 had a positive TST and 10 had a positive T-SPOT.TB test. No subject was positive for both tests. Patients with a positive T-SPOT.TB test did not have typical risk factors for LTBI based on clinical evaluation. Conclusion. The lack of concordance between the TST and the T-SPOT.TB assay may indicate that the immunoassay is more sensitive, particularly in a patient population taking immunosuppressive medications. It is equally likely that the low prevalence of LTBI in this low-risk population led to an increase in the false-positive rate despite the high sensitivity and specificity of the T-SPOT.TB assay. In the context of our patient population, the T-SPOT.TB assay is likely to be most useful in evaluation of patients with a positive TST, since these patients have a higher pretest probability of having LTBI.