Spondylitis Association of America
    
 
Section Home
 
News Archive
 
Press Releases
 
SAA's Legislative Action Center
 
Special Report:
TNF-a Inhibitors
Enbrel, Remicade
and Humira

The Latest News in Rheumatology

12/5/2002

Dangers of Methotrexate Overdose

Inflammatory Joint Manifestations are Prevalent in Psoriasis: Prevalence Study of Joint and Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Patients, and Evaluation of a Psoriatic and Arthritic Questionnaire

The Use of Infliximab in Academic Rheumatology Practice: An Audit of Early Clinical Experience

Misleading Pharmaceutical Drug Ads Persist

Study Suggests Replacing Joints Earlier


Dangers of Methotrexate Overdose

New York (Reuters Health) -- The Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) warned clinicians to take special care prescribing or administering oral methotrexate to guard against accidental overdose in light of two tragic methotrexate mix-ups in the last month.

Methotrexate is typically given in low weekly or twice-a-week doses for treating conditions like spondylitis, but it is also given in much higher daily doses for fighting cancer. Some patients are accidentally receiving the drug daily when they were intended to only receive it once a week. A mix-up could result in disability or even death, particularly in elderly patients. Recently, a 79-year-old patient died after receiving nine doses of 15mg methotrexate daily instead of weekly.

ISMP has been warning the medical community for years about the potential for errors with oral methotrexate. They caution that "because of the number of fatalities...clinicians should consider it a higher alert medication regardless of the indication."

ISMP recommends tips for doctors to ensure that they are prescribing the correct dosage, but patients should also make sure they are receiving the medication treatment appropriate for their condition. When receiving the initial prescription, confirm the dosage with the doctor, ask a pharmacist to explain the dangers of extra methotrexate doses, and make sure that correct dosage patterns are followed.

"We're very concerned...and it isn't just methotrexate," said ISMP President Michael Cohen. "The doctors and pharmacists are just so used to one tablet daily. If they're not really focusing on what they're doing, they do it almost automatically."

Back to Top

Inflammatory Joint Manifestations are Prevalent in Psoriasis: Prevalence Study of Joint and Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Patients, and Evaluation of a Psoriatic and Arthritic Questionnaire

Researchers sought to examine the prevalence of inflammatory arthritis in people with psoriasis since previous studies place the amount of psoriatic patients with arthritis anywhere between 7 and 40%. Gerd-Marie Alenius and colleagues from the University Hospital in Umea, Sweden published their findings in a recent issue of The Journal of Rheumatology.

Results: 202 psoriatic patients from the County of Vasterbotten, Sweden, participated in clinical examinations, testing, and a questionnaire. The researchers also wanted to evaluate a population who did not know whether they had an arthritic disease, so patients with known arthritic disease were excluded from the questionnaire section of the study.

They found a high prevalence of inflammatory joint/axial disease as well as non-inflammatory joint involvement in this group of psoriatic patients, although almost half of the patients with peripheral arthritis and/or axial disease had not previously been diagnosed. Only about 40% of the psoriatic patients could be classified as healthy based on the absence of joint/back pain.

Of the undiagnosed patients with peripheral arthritis, 71% had active disease and almost half had radiologically detectable erosive and/or deforming disease. This suggests that many patients are not diagnosed at an appropriate time, so they are not getting sufficient treatment for their joint disease.

Back to Top

The Use of Infliximab in Academic Rheumatology Practice: An Audit of Early Clinical Experience

While Infliximab (Remicade®) is seen as a major advance by many for patients with severe arthritic disease, there is not much reported experience in actual clinical practice as opposed to the setting of a clinical research trial. Researchers Mary-Ann Fitzcharles and colleagues from McGill University, Ontreal, Quebec, Canada published their findings in a recent issue of The Journal of Rheumatology.

Results: Forty-one people took part in the study, most of whom had rheumatoid arthritis, although 20% had a spondyloarthopathy. They observed the following:

  • Impressive clinical response in almost all of the patients continuing treatment--about 96% improved "moderately to greatly".
  • More than half of the patients needed to adjust their dosage at some point during the study.
  • 15% of the patients encountered severe side effects directly related to the treatment. Such side effects included acute anaphylactoid-like reactions, vasculitis, and histoplasmosis.
  • Less severe side effects that did not preclude continuation of treatment but frequently required medical intervention were noted in 93%. The most commonly reported minor side effects were upper respiratory tract symptoms, mild rash, and itching.

The researchers conclude that much is still unknown about the long-term consequences of continued infliximab treatment. They found the rate of adverse side effects to be very high, many of which required immediate medical intervention. Two patients even had anaphylactoid-like reactions as late as the fifth and eighth infusions, suggesting that patients may gradually develop a sensitivity to the non-human component of infliximab.

They agree that infliximab "should be administered under the supervision and monitoring of physicians experienced in the diagnosis and treatment" with full resuscitation facilities available in the event of acute reaction. Adjustments to dosage and scheduling treatments were made at the time of the infusion, which they think is essential in providing the best close follow-up medical care.

Back to Top

Misleading Pharmaceutical Drug Ads Persist

According to a new government report, pharmaceutical companies are continuing to deliver misleading drug ads to consumers. Officials place the blame on delays in the FDA's review process, and repeated violations by some drug companies.

The amount spent on consumer advertising of prescription medicines has tripled in recent years, and prescription drug spending is the fastest growing component of healthcare spending, as mentioned in the recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).

The FDA requires pharmaceutical companies to submit all drug ads when the ads are first released to the public. If the FDA finds the ad to be misleading or it if fails to represent both the benefits and risks of the medication, the FDA will issue a regulatory letter requesting that the company either withdraw or revise the ad. A warning letter may be issued for more serious violations.

Between August 1997 and August 2002, the FDA issued 88 regulatory letters and four warning letters for pharmaceutical ads that violated its standards. The FDA says that the companies stop the misleading advertisements, but the GAO report shows that a letter from the FDA is not always enough to make the pharmaceutical companies change their ways.

For example, between 1997 and 2002, the FDA issued 14 regulatory letters to GlaxoSmithKline, 6 to Schering Coporation, 5 to Merck, and 4 to Pfizer.

Some companies even received multiple letters for new ads with misleading claims about the same drug, such as in a situation involving Glaxo Wellcome from 1999 and 2000 for the allergy drug Flonase, and another involving Pfizer's cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.

Researchers also found that a recent change in the review process has significantly increased the time between the FDA's identification of a misleading ad and a letter to the company. Some regulatory letters may not even be issued until after the ad campaign has run its course. The change was implemented in January 2002 by the Bush administration to require lawyers at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the letters before they can be issued. The HHS plans to speed up this process to reduce the number of days letters are under review.

While Bruce Kuhlik (general counsel for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) agrees with the GAO's findings that the review process needs to move more quickly, he says that the drug ads are already subject to the most stringent regulatory processes as compared to other types of advertising.

"Out of the hundreds and hundreds of ads under review, the FDA has only issued a small number of letters and only four of the more serious warning letters," says Kuhlik. "And companies have uniformly complied in response to those letters."

Other findings from the GAO reports:

  • In 2001, pharmaceutical companies spent $30.3 billion on research and development, and $19.1 billion on promotional activities (including $2.7 billion on advertising)
  • From 1997 to 2001, ad spending grew by 145%; research and development increased by only 59%
  • The bulk of the rise in prescription drug spending is due to more people using the medications, not necessarily price increases.
  • Prescription drug use has grown at an average rate of 6% a year since 1992, thanks to an aging population, more effective medications, and increased insurance coverage for medications.
  • Between 1999 and 2000, the number of prescriptions written for the most heavily advertised drugs grew by 25%; drugs that were not heavily advertised only increased by 4%.
Back to Top

Study Suggests Replacing Joints Earlier

Patients fare best when they undergo joint replacement surgery for knees and damaged hips in the early stages of osteoarthritis, as concluded in a recent study published in the December issue of Arthritis & Rheumatism. This type of surgery is usually reserved as a last-ditch effort for people with the most pain and least movement, but research shows that getting the operation before it's "needed" may actually yield longer-lasting benefits.

Jeffrey N. Katz, MD of Harvard School, explains that physicians are traditionally taught to hold back and wait before replacing a joint--it is viewed as the "last resort". But he and other colleagues found that the longer a person waits, the more disabled he/she becomes, and the surgery outcome is worse. "They don't catch up in their ease of movement and quality of life compared to their counterparts who were operated on at an earlier stage."

Results: 165 people with osteoarthritis bad enough to need joint replacement surgery were divided into two groups prior to surgery: those able to go about their day and those unable to maintain their normal lives due to arthritis pain.

All enjoyed similar relief in the first six months after surgery, but after two years, those with low functioning prior to surgery were five times more likely to need assistance moving around.

Dr. Katz says, "If you wait until you have trouble with basic activities like moving room-to-room, your outcome may be worse than if you get your joint replaced when you begin to notice trouble moving in recreational activities or moving about the community."

According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, hip and knee replacements are highly popular and successful procedures that bring relief to more than 90% of the 435,000 American who receive them each year.

Dr. Katz believes that part of the reason for surgery delays is because of misinformation on the risks and benefits of the procedure. There is a 1% or less death rate for joint-replacement surgeries, which is very good, but causes some people to take pause.

Back to Top


Join SAA   |    Educational Materials   |    Contact Us   |    Site Map   |    Privacy Statement
© 2008 Spondylitis Association of America, All Rights Reserved