Efficacy and safety of leflunomide with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis: a retrospective analysis
Clinical Rheumatology, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s10067-026-08325-2
- Dergi Adı: Clinical Rheumatology
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest), Pharma Collection (ProQuest)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Competing risks, Leflunomide, Propensity score, Psoriatic arthritis, Treatment persistence, Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors
- Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purpose: The clinical benefit of combining leflunomide (LEF) with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and treatment durability of LEF-TNFi compared with non-LEF regimens (predominantly methotrexate (MTX)-TNFi and TNFi monotherapy). Methods: This retrospective cohort included 492 biologic-naive PsA patients initiating TNFi (2003–2020): LEF–TNFi (n = 85) versus non-LEF (n = 407). Multiple imputation addressed missing data, and propensity score matching (7 covariates; caliper 0.2 standard deviations of the logit-propensity score) addressed confounding by indication. Longitudinal outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models; treatment modification was evaluated via Cox models. Reasons for treatment modification were examined descriptively using a competing risks framework. Results: Substantial baseline imbalances (23 of 36 variables with standardized mean difference > 0.10) were eliminated by propensity score matching (0 of 7 matching covariates with SMD > 0.10; 96.9% of LEF patients retained). Post-adjustment, longitudinal disease activity trajectories did not differ significantly between groups (time-by-treatment interactions: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), p = 0.862; Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), p = 0.308). Overall treatment modification rates were similar (propensity score-matched hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53–2.51; p = 0.709). Descriptively, LEF patients were more frequently subject to treatment modification for remission (10.6% vs. 5.9%) and less frequently for inefficacy (5.9% vs. 11.1%), although cause-specific hazard ratios did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: After propensity score adjustment, LEF-TNFi showed no detectable difference in disease activity trajectories or overall treatment persistence compared with MTX-TNFi and TNFi monotherapy. However, LEF–TNFi modifications were predominantly driven by achieved remission rather than inefficacy.