Abstract
Methotrexate is the most common disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Current evidence supports its efficacy in the treatment of RA, resulting in improved short-term disease control and long-term outcomes in terms of radiographic progression. Oral methotrexate has traditionally been used first-line due to various reasons, including ease of administration, low cost and easy availability. A methotrexate dose of >15 mg/week is generally required for disease control but oral methotrexate may be only partially effective or poorly tolerated in some patients. The rationale for using subcutaneous (SC) methotrexate is based on its improved bioavailability at higher doses and better tolerability in some patients who have side effects when receiving oral methotrexate. Current guidance advocates ‘treating to target’, with the aim of inducing remission in RA patients. In some patients, this can be achieved using methotrexate alone or in combination with other traditional DMARDs. Patients who have not responded to two DMARDs, including methotrexate, are eligible for biological therapy as per current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in the UK. Biological treatments are expensive and using SC methotrexate can improve disease control in RA patients, thus potentially avoiding or delaying the requirement for future biological treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Subcutaneous methotrexate should be routinely considered in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, prior to using biological therapy. |
1 Background
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disabling condition that affects approximately 1 % of the UK population [1]. The treatment of RA has been revolutionised in the past few decades with the advent of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics. ‘Treat to target’ recommendations advocate remission as a goal for treatment of RA [2]. Methotrexate is described as effective and is the best-studied disease-modifying drug used in the treatment of RA. In a recent trial of methotrexate versus combination DMARDs in early arthritis, methotrexate and steroids were as effective as combination DMARD treatment [3]. This has previously been demonstrated in another trial of 205 RA patients in whom methotrexate monotherapy showed similar efficacy to combination therapy [4]. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on the management of newly diagnosed RA advocates early combination therapy, including methotrexate, with the aim of inducing remission [5].
Methotrexate is an analogue of aminopterin, which was originally used in 1948 to treat leukemia in children. Aminopterin was gradually replaced by methotrexate in the 1950s due to its less toxic nature. Since then methotrexate has been widely used in various autoimmune conditions, including RA [6], and in 1986 was licensed by the US FDA for the treatment of RA [7].
2 Mode of Action
Methotrexate is commonly administered orally as a weekly dosage of between 7.5 and 25 mg, but can also be used by other routes of administration, including subcutaneously, intramuscularly and intravenously. Methotrexate is a folate analogue and, because of its hydrophilic nature, it uses a carrier-mediated transport [8]. The exact mechanism of action of methotrexate in RA remains unclear; however, there are various proposed mechanisms of action, one of which revolves around folate antagonism. Methotrexate inhibits dihydrofolate reductase and other folate-dependent enzymes, thus preventing purine and pyrimidine synthesis in the S phase of the cell cycle, which is required for proliferation of actively dividing cells. A study by Genestier et al. demonstrated that methotrexate induces apoptosis and clonal deletion of activated T cells [9]; the other proposed mechanism revolves around adenosine release. Using a rat model, Montesinos et al. demonstrated that adenosine generated endogenously mediates the anti-inflammatory effects of methotrexate [10]. Other modes of action have also been proposed, including inhibition of synthesis of transmethylation products that accumulate in chronically inflamed tissues, and reduction in intracellular glutathione levels, leading to diminished macrophage recruitment and function [11].
Bioavailability of low-dose oral methotrexate is highly variable, ranging from 25 to 100 %, but is usually around 70 % [12]. There is significant individual difference in the absorption of oral methotrexate from the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in variable serum concentration [13]. Methotrexate administered by the intramuscular (IM) route is better absorbed and associated with improved disease control [14, 15], and IM methotrexate is well tolerated and has good efficacy. This has been shown by Rau et al. in comparative trials of RA patients randomised to treatment with IM methotrexate versus gold therapy [16, 17]; however, IM injections cannot be easily self-administered by patients in contrast to subcutaneous (SC) injections. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown similar bioavailability of methotrexate after SC or IM administration [18], making SC methotrexate an attractive option due to its ease of administration. In addition, SC injections are generally less painful than IM injections.
3 Rationale for Subcutaneous Methotrexate
SC methotrexate has been shown to have better tolerability and efficacy compared with oral methotrexate. In a retrospective review of 762 RA patients, one-third of the patients had stopped oral methotrexate due to poor tolerability [19]. This is an important limitation of oral methotrexate. A 6-month trial of 375 RA patients receiving oral versus SC methotrexate showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. At 24 weeks, 78 % of patients in the SC methotrexate group had achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response compared with 70 % in the oral methotrexate group (p < 0.05) [20]. In another trial, switching to SC methotrexate from an oral formulation due to insufficient response or adverse events resulted in 63 % of patients showing improvement in disease activity [21]. In another study of 70 RA patients treated with SC methotrexate, 53 % remained on SC methotrexate over a mean follow-up period of 1.8 years without needing to be considered for biologics [22].
Recent data from an observational study of the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) also supports improved efficacy and tolerability of SC methotrexate over oral methotrexate. In this cohort, patients who were initially treated with SC methotrexate had a lower rate of treatment failure and greater reduction in Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 compared with the group receiving oral methotrexate [23].
A head-to-head comparison of oral versus SC methotrexate in 47 patients with RA demonstrated a linear increase in systemic exposure after SC methotrexate compared with a plateau seen in patients receiving oral methotrexate at doses ≥15 mg/week. This would suggest little or no advantage in increasing oral methotrexate beyond 15 mg/week. However, administration of SC methotrexate continues to exhibit a linear, dose-proportional increase with no plateau, therefore dosage increase can be expected to result in increased efficacy [24].
Gastrointestinal side effects are common with oral methotrexate and, in the majority of cases, switching to the SC form has been shown to alleviate this problem in the dermatology setting [25]. Historically, the use of SC methotrexate was limited due to the logistics of dispensing such cytotoxic medications and patients therefore having to attend hospital on a weekly basis for their injections. A recent review of the patterns of methotrexate use in RA patients in the US identified that SC methotrexate is underutilized (possibly associated with this problem) [26]. A prefilled methotrexate pen is now available and is very well tolerated. In a study of 120 patients, 75 % preferred a prefilled pen over syringes [27].
The ‘3E initiative’ also recommends consideration of the use of SC methotrexate in the treatment of RA in patients who cannot tolerate oral preparations or have ongoing active disease [28]. It has been calculated that the use of SC methotrexate following oral methotrexate failure has the potential to save an estimated £7197 per patient in the first year of therapy and £9.3 million per year nationally in new patients with RA [29]. This is a significant saving in the current financial climate. The MENTOR study was a retrospective review of 196 patients who were switched from oral to SC methotrexate. Less than 10 % of these patients required biologic therapy in the following 2 years, which supports the proposition that SC methotrexate is both effective and well tolerated in the treatment of RA. Results from the MENTOR study also indicate high continuation rates, with 83 % of patients still receiving SC methotrexate at 1 year [30].
Various trials have looked at using biologic therapies earlier in RA to induce remission. However, methotrexate monotherapy has been shown to be as equally efficacious as methotrexate and etanercept combined in inducing remission induction in patients with early RA [31], therefore the widespread use of early biologic drug usage needs further study. The threshold for using biologics in the UK is considered high (DAS >5.1) compared with other European and Western countries, many of whom use a lower DAS threshold (e.g. 3.2). The British Society for Rheumatology has suggested using this lower threshold in the UK [32]. We believe that the best way to take this forward would indeed be to lower the threshold, but add to the definition of methotrexate failure as “failure of oral and SC methotrexate” (as also stated in the Canadian biologic guidelines), which would dramatically reduce the potential impact (clinical and financial) of such a change in guidelines [33].
4 Limitations
The evidence for toxicity with parenteral methotrexate is inconsistent across the various clinical trials. Although confirming superiority of SC methotrexate over oral methotrexate, the study by Braun et al. showed that the gastrointestinal adverse events were similar between the two routes of methotrexate administration, with more discontinuations in the SC group [20]; however, other studies have shown better gastrointestinal tolerability of SC methotrexate [22, 25]. In addition, the cost of the SC methotrexate formulation will vary from country to country and remains an important consideration in the current financial climate.
5 Conclusion
Oral methotrexate remains the first drug of choice in the treatment of RA due to the combination of its efficacy, tolerability, availability, and affordability. SC methotrexate should usually be considered prior to biologics in patients with poor tolerance of oral methotrexate or resistant disease.
References
Symmons D, Turner G, Webb R, et al. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom: new estimates for a new century. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002;41:793–800.
Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Burmester GR, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207524 (Epub 12 May 2015).
Verschueren P, De Cock D, Corluy L, et al. Methotrexate in combination with other DMARDs is not superior to methotrexate alone for remission induction with moderate-to-high-dose glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis after 16 weeks of treatment: the CareRA trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(1):27–34.
Dougados M, Cpombe B, Cantagrel A, et al. Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58:220–5.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guidance CG79. Rheumatoid arthritis: the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg79. Accessed 15 Aug 2015.
Ward JR. Historical perspective on the use of methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1985;12(Suppl 12):3–6.
Paulus HE. FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee Meeting: methotrexate; guidelines for the clinical evaluation of antiinflammatory drugs. DMSO in scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum. 1986;29:1289–90.
Inoue K, Yuasa H. Molecular basis for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis therapy. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2014;29(1):12–9.
Genestier L, Paillot R, Fournel S, et al. Immunosuppressive properties of methotrexate: apoptosis and clonal deletion of activated peripheral T cells. J Clin Invest. 1998;102:322–8.
Montesinos MC, Yap JS, Desai A, et al. Reversal of the antiinflammatory effects of methotrexate by the nonselective adenosine receptor antagonists theophylline and caffeine: evidence that the antiinflammatory effects of methotrexate are mediated via multiple adenosine receptors in rat adjuvant arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:656–63.
Cronstein BN. Low-dose methotrexate: a mainstay in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacol Rev. 2005;57:163–72.
Herman RA, van Pedersen P, Hoffman J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of low dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Pharm Sci. 1989;78:165–71.
Freeman-Narrod M, Gerstley BJ, Engstrom P, et al. Comparison of serum concentrations of methotrexate after various routes of administration. Cancer. 1975;36:1619–24.
Wegrzyn J, Adeleine P, Miossec P. Better efficacy of methotrexate given by intramuscular injection than orally in patients with rheumatoid arthritis Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:1232–4.
Bingham SJ, Buch MH, Lindsay S, et al. Parenteral methotrexate should be given before biological therapy. Rheumatology. 2003;42(8):1009–10.
Rau R, Herborn G, Menninger H, et al. Comparison of intramuscular methotrexate and gold sodium thiomalate in the treatment of early erosive rheumatoid arthritis: 12 month data of a double-blind parallel study of 174 patients. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(3):345–52.
Rau R, Herborn G, Karger T, et al. A double-blind comparison of parenteral methotrexate and parenteral gold in the treatment of early erosive rheumatoid arthritis: an interim report on 102 patients after 12 months. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1991;21(2 Suppl 1):13–20.
Jundt JW, Browne BA, Fiocco GP, et al. A comparison of low dose methotrexate bioavailability: oral solution, oral tablet, subcutaneous and intramuscular dosing. J Rheumatol. 1993;20(11):1845–9.
Nikiphorou E, Negoescu A, Fitzpatrick JD, et al. Indispensable or intolerable? Methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis: a retrospective review of discontinuation rates from a large UK cohort. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33(5):609–14.
Braun J, Kästner P, Flaxenberg P, et al. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus oral administration of methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a six-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, phase IV trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:73–81.
Bakker MF, Jacobs JW, Welsing PM, et al. Utrecht Arthritis Cohort Study Group. Are switches from oral to subcutaneous methotrexate or addition of ciclosporin to methotrexate useful steps in a tight control treatment strategy for rheumatoid arthritis? A post hoc analysis of the CAMERA study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(10):1849–52.
Müller RB, von Kempis J, Haile SR, et al. Effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of subcutaneous methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the St. Gallen cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;45(1):28–34.
Hazlewood GS, Thorne JC, Pope JE, For the CATCH Investigators, et al. The comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206504 (Epub 15 May 2015).
Schiff MH, Jaffe JS, Freundlich B. Head-to-head, randomised, crossover study of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: drug-exposure limitations of oral methotrexate at doses ≥15 mg may be overcome with subcutaneous administration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(8):1549–51.
Kromann CB, Lage-Hansen PR, Koefoed M, et al. Does switching from oral to subcutaneous administration of methotrexate influence on patient reported gastro-intestinal adverse effects? J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26(2):188–90.
Curtis JR, Zhang J, Xie F, et al. Use of oral and subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(11):1604–11.
Demary W, Schwenke H, Rockwitz K, et al. Subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, by prefilled syringes versus prefilled pens: patient preference and comparison of the self-injection experience. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1061–71.
Visser K, Katchamart W, Loza E, et al. Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(7):1086–93.
Fitzpatrick R, Scott DGI, Keary I. Cost-minimisation analysis of subcutaneous methotrexate versus biologic therapy for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance to oral methotrexate. Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32(11):1605–12.
Scott DG, Claydon P, Ellis C. Retrospective evaluation of continuation rates following a switch to subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients failing to respond to or tolerate oral methotrexate: the MENTOR study. Scand J Rheumatol. 2014;43(6):470–6.
Nam JL, Villeneuve E, Hensor EM, et al. A randomised controlled trial of etanercept and methotrexate to induce remission in early inflammatory arthritis: the EMPIRE trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):1027–36.
Deighton C, Hyrich K, Ding T, et al. BSR and BHPR rheumatoid arthritis guidelines on eligibility criteria for the first biological therapy. Rheumatology. 2010;49(6):1197–9.
Bykerk V, Akhavan P, Hazelwood G, et al. Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(8):1559–82.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Conflicts of interest
David G. I. Scott has received funding from Medac for presenting results from the Metaject Study at EULAR 2012, as well as the Department of Rheumatology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation, and has received grant funding from Medac to support the audit of SC methotrexate in 2012/2013. Poonam Sharma has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharma, P., Scott, D.G.I. Optimizing Methotrexate Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Case for Subcutaneous Methotrexate Prior to Biologics. Drugs 75, 1953–1956 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-015-0486-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-015-0486-7