For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
45
views
125
references
 Top references
cited by
152
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      251
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Mechanism of action of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis, and the search for biomarkers.

      Author(s): 1 , 1 , 1
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Nature reviews. Rheumatology
      Publisher: Springer Nature

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The treatment and outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been transformed over the past two decades. Low disease activity and remission are now frequently achieved, and this success is largely the result of the evolution of treatment paradigms and the introduction of new therapeutic agents. Despite the rapid pace of change, the most commonly used drug in RA remains methotrexate, which is considered the anchor drug for this condition. In this Review, we describe the known pharmacokinetic properties and putative mechanisms of action of methotrexate. Consideration of the pharmacodynamic perspective could inform the development of biomarkers of responsiveness to methotrexate, enabling therapy to be targeted to specific groups of patients. Such biomarkers could revolutionize the management of RA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references125

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PREMIER study: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment.

          Ferdinand C Breedveld, Michael Weisman, Arthur F Kavanaugh … (2006)
          To compare the efficacy and safety of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy or adalimumab monotherapy in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not previously received MTX treatment. This was a 2-year, multicenter, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study of 799 RA patients with active disease of < 3 years' duration who had never been treated with MTX. Treatments included adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week plus oral MTX, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week, or weekly oral MTX. Co-primary end points at year 1 were American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) and mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score. Combination therapy was superior to both MTX and adalimumab monotherapy in all outcomes measured. At year 1, more patients receiving combination therapy exhibited an ACR50 response (62%) than did patients who received MTX or adalimumab monotherapy (46% and 41%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar superiority of combination therapy was seen in ACR20, ACR70, and ACR90 response rates at 1 and 2 years. There was significantly less radiographic progression (P < or = 0.002) among patients in the combination treatment arm at both year 1 and year 2 (1.3 and 1.9 Sharp units, respectively) than in patients in the MTX arm (5.7 and 10.4 Sharp units) or the adalimumab arm (3.0 and 5.5 Sharp units). After 2 years of treatment, 49% of patients receiving combination therapy exhibited disease remission (28-joint Disease Activity Score <2.6), and 49% exhibited a major clinical response (ACR70 response for at least 6 continuous months), rates approximately twice those found among patients receiving either monotherapy. The adverse event profiles were comparable in all 3 groups. In this population of patients with early, aggressive RA, combination therapy with adalimumab plus MTX was significantly superior to either MTX alone or adalimumab alone in improving signs and symptoms of disease, inhibiting radiographic progression, and effecting clinical remission.
          Article 0 comments Cited 398 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXXI. Nomenclature and classification of adenosine receptors--an update.

            Bertil Fredholm, Adriaan P IJzerman, Kenneth A. Jacobson … (2011)
            In the 10 years since our previous International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology report on the nomenclature and classification of adenosine receptors, no developments have led to major changes in the recommendations. However, there have been so many other developments that an update is needed. The fact that the structure of one of the adenosine receptors has recently been solved has already led to new ways of in silico screening of ligands. The evidence that adenosine receptors can form homo- and heteromultimers has accumulated, but the functional significance of such complexes remains unclear. The availability of mice with genetic modification of all the adenosine receptors has led to a clarification of the functional roles of adenosine, and to excellent means to study the specificity of drugs. There are also interesting associations between disease and structural variants in one or more of the adenosine receptors. Several new selective agonists and antagonists have become available. They provide improved possibilities for receptor classification. There are also developments hinting at the usefulness of allosteric modulators. Many drugs targeting adenosine receptors are in clinical trials, but the established therapeutic use is still very limited.
            Article 0 comments Cited 384 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

              Lars Klareskog, Désirée van der Heijde, Julien de Jager … (2004)
              Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.
              Article 0 comments Cited 367 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Nat Rev Rheumatol
                Title: Nature reviews. Rheumatology
                Publisher: Springer Nature
                ISSN (Electronic): 1759-4804
                ISSN (Print): 1759-4790
                Publication date (Electronic): Dec 2016
                Volume: 12
                Issue: 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, UK.
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: nrrheum.2016.175
                DOI: 10.1038/nrrheum.2016.175
                PubMed ID: 27784891
                SO-VID: 939d20c7-08dd-4036-8766-9d33e0d9dcda
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content251

                See all similar

                Cited by152

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,566

                See all reference authors