Leflunomide as an alternative csDMARD for rheumatoid arthritis in a resource-constrained setting: A real-life experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7196/Keywords:
Leflunomide, csDMARD, CDAI, Resource-constrained setting, Side effects, Discontinuation rates, High disease activity, Moderate disease activity, Low disease activity, Clinical remissionAbstract
Background. Early treatment with methotrexate (MTX) remains the mainstay of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. In patients with inadequate response to MTX, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommends the addition of a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) if poor prognostic factors are present. Despite patients in Africa frequently having poor prognostic factors, bDMARDs are often not available. Leflunomide (LEF) has been shown to be a potent DMARD, leading EULAR to question whether its efficacy is equivalent to MTX as a first-line agent.
Objective. To review LEF’s use and safety profile in a low-resource setting, and its usefulness in patients with inadequate response to MTX.
Methods. A retrospective record review was done of all patients with RA who received LEF for at least 6 months between 2018 and 2020 at the Division of Rheumatology, Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. Patients in whom LEF was discontinued within the first 6 months were also included when assessing the discontinuation rate and side-effects. Demographic information, reasons for initiation, side-effects and treatment discontinuation were recorded. Efficacy data were recorded using the clinical disease activity index (CDAI) at 6-month intervals up to 24 months.
Results. A total of 210 patients who were on LEF were included. Most (n=177) patients were females from low-income backgrounds, with a mean age of 56.51 years and a mean (standard deviation) disease duration of 6.9 (1.0 - 13.8) years. Almost all patients (n=209; 99.52%) had poor prognostic factors, mainly high disease activity (mean CDAI 26.68) and previous exposure to ≥2 conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). Most patients initiated LEF owing to loss of efficacy and poor response to triple therapy. After initiation of LEF, treatment targets were achieved by 98 (53%) patients, with 22 (11.9%) and 76 (41.1%) patients achieving clinical remission and low disease activity, respectively (p<0.001, confidence interval (CI) 9.90 -12.29). The mean CDAI decreased to 11.17 (p<0.001, CI 9.59 - 12.74). Most disease control was achieved within the first 6 - 12 months, and was sustained for 24 months. A total of 16 (7.62%) patients experienced side-effects, necessitating treatment discontinuation. Two pregnancies exposed to LEF in the first trimester resulted in healthy babies.
Conclusion. LEF has been demonstrated to be an effective alternative csDMARD for patients with inadequate response to MTX-based therapies, reducing the mean CDAI from 26 to 11. It adds a viable alternative for RA patients with poor prognostic factors and lack of access to bDMARDs.
References
1. Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bergstra SA, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;82(1):3-18. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2022-223356
2. Kolou M. Challenges of rheumatoid arthritis management in sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century. Open J Rheumatol Autoimmune Dis 2023;13(1):17-40. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojra.2023.131003
3. Kalden JR, Schattenkirchner M, Sörensen H, et al. The efficacy and safety of leflunomide in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: A five-year followup study. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48(6):1513-1520. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.11015
4. Emery P, Breedveld FC, Lemmel EM, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000;39(6):655-665. https://doi. org/10.1093/rheumatology/39.6.655
5. Smolen JS, Emery P. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide in active rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000;39(Suppl 1):S48-S56. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rheumatology.a031495
6. Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis: A review. JAMA 2018;320(3):1360-1372. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13103
7. Mody GM. Rheumatology in Africa-challenges and opportunities. Arthritis Res Ther 2017;19(1):17- 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-017-1259-3
8. Rudan I, Sidhu S, Papana A, et al. Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and analysis. J Glob Health 2015;5(1):010409. https//doi.org/10.7189/ jogh.05.010409
9. Nicholas A, Alare K, AbdulBasit Opeyemi M, Oluwatosin A. The outlook of rheumatological care in Africa: Current state, challenges, and recommendation. Ann Med Surg 2022;82(September):4-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104689
10. Anderson J, Caplan L, Yazdany J, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64(5):640-647. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21649
11. Hodkinson B, van Duuren E, Pettipher C, et al. South African recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: An algorithm for the standard of care in 2013. S Afr Med J 2013;103(8):577- 585. https//doi.org/10.7196/samj.7047.
12. Wells G, Haguenauer D, Shea B, Suarez-Almazor ME, Welch VA, Tugwell P. Cyclosporine for rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;1998(2):CD001083. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. CD001083
13. Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner C, Belseck E. Azathioprine for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD001461.
14. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001461
15. Jiang F, Yan H, Liang L, et al. Incidence and risk factors of anti-tuberculosis drug induced liver injury (DILI): Large cohort study involving 4 652 Chinese adult tuberculosis patients. Liver Int 2021;41(7):1565-1575. https//doi.org/10.1111/liv.14896
16. SmolenJS,AletahaD,BijlsmaJWJ,etal.Treatingrheumatoidarthritistotarget:Recommendationsofan international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(4):631-637. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2009.123919
17. Hodkinson B, Magomero KR, Tikly M. Combination leflunomide and methotrexate in refractory rheumatoid arthritis: A biologic sparing approach. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2016;8(5):172-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720X16664324
18. Hazlewood GS, Barnabe C, Tomlinson G, Marshall D, Devoe DJA, Bombardier C. Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;8: CD010227. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010227.pub2
19. Riley TR, George MD. Risk for infections with glucocorticoids and DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open 2021;7(1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001235
20. Sundbaum JK, Arkema EV, Bruchfeld J, Jonsson J, Askling J, Baecklund E. Tuberculosis in biologic-
naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Risk factors and tuberculosis characteristics. J Rheumatol
2021;48(8):1243-1250. https://doi.10.3899/jrheum.201251
21. Hočevar A, Rozman B, Praprotnik S, et al. Leflunomide-associated tuberculosis? Rheumatology
2006;45(2):228-229. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kei173
22. Pfaller B. A critical review of the reproductive safety of Leflunomide. Clin Rheumatol 2020;39(2):607-
612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04819-4
23. Chambers CD, Johnson DL, Robinson LK, et al. Birth outcomes in women who have taken leflunomide
during pregnancy. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62(5):1494-503. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.27358
24. Adas MA, Allen VB, Yates M, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the safety of early interventional treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2021;60(10):4450-4462. https://doi.
org/10.1093/rheumatology/keab429
25. O’Dell JR, Mikuls TR, Taylor TH, et al. Therapies for active rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure. N Engl J Med 2013;369(4):307-318. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1303006
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 P E Mkhize, AJ Viljoen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Licensing Information
The SAMJ is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
Publishing Rights
Authors grant the Publisher the exclusive right to publish, display, reproduce and/or distribute the Work in print and electronic format and in any medium known or hereafter developed, including for commercial use. The Author also agrees that the Publisher may retain in print or electronic format more than one copy of the Work for the purpose of preservation, security and back-up.
