When, at the end of the last decade, the new and potent tumor necrosis factor (TNF ) inhibitors were approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the era of methotrexate (MTX) as the gold standard for treatment of this disease seemed to have come to an inevitable end. On the one hand, there were the new, intelligently designed and highly specific cytokine inhibitors, a result of the fast-growing knowledge about immunopathologic mechanisms of inflammation. On the other hand, there was MTX, a byproduct of oncology research from decades past. The exact mode of antiarthritic action of this antifolate drug in the complex system of inflammation could only be hypothesized. Now, several years later, MTX plays a more important role than ever as the basis of RA treatment. Due to its effectiveness and tolerability, MTX remains the drug of first choice in the treatment of RA. Moreover, in order to make the new biologic drugs as effective as possible, almost all of the new investigational drugs are tested in combination with MTX. The designs of these clinical trials mainly resemble the design of the original Anti–TNF Trial in RA with Concomitant Therapy (ATTRACT) study (1), in which MTX was given in combination with infliximab, at that time still with the purpose of inhibiting the formation of antibodies against the drug. Meanwhile, not only TNF inhibitors (2,3), but also many other new biologic drugs are given in combination with MTX because this strongly increases the magnitude and duration of the therapeutic response. Although there is now a growing number of new drugs available for the treatment of RA, it is widely accepted that the question is not whether a patient with RA should receive MTX or not, but rather, whether the patient should receive it with or without a biologic drug. Thus, the principle of folate antagonism seems to remain the foundation of immunomodulatory treatment of RA, both now and in the future. It should be emphasized that MTX is experiencing a comeback in RA clinical trials, although this drug has several pharmacologic disadvantages that one might think should be limiting its use. First, if given orally, MTX shows a wide variability of resorption, ranging in some studies from 28% to 88% (4). Second, although it is given only once a week, it has a short half-life in the circulation, consisting of only 5–8 hours (4). Therefore, it is thought that its antiarthritic effect might partly depend on the rate of polyglutamation, an intracellular transformation of MTX that results in intracellular persistence of the drug. The rate of this modification, which is possibly crucial for its therapeutic effect, has a marked interindividual variability (5) and is influenced by independent factors, such as estrogen, insulin, or dexamethasone (6). Finally, the intracellular uptake of the molecule and its pharmacologic actions on intracellular targets are characterized by a broad range of mechanisms (7). This makes differentiation between the mechanisms of the unwanted toxic effects of MTX and the wanted antiinflammatory effects difficult. Different approaches have been tried in an attempt to overcome the disadvantageous properties of MTX. Braun et al (8) recently reported the results of a clinical trial showing that MTX is more effective when given subcutaneously instead of orally. With this mode of application, the unpredictability of resorption can be avoided. My coworkers and I (9,10) have reported that MTX accumulates in inflamed joints if it is covalently Christoph Fiehn, MD: Center for Rheumatic Diseases, Baden-Baden, Germany. Dr. Fiehn has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from Medac (less than $10,000). Address correspondence and reprint requests to Christoph Fiehn, MD, Center for Rheumatic Diseases, Baden-Baden, Rotenbachtalstrasse 5, D-76530 Baden-Baden, Germany. E-mail: c.fiehn@rheumazentrum-baden.de. Submitted for publication August 26, 2008; accepted in revised form October 3, 2008. Arthritis & Rheumatism
Read full abstract