This popped up in my feed this morning to celebrate MTX's 75th birthday - I thought others might find it interesting.
Methotrexate - a history lesson: This popped up in... - PMRGCAuk
Methotrexate - a history lesson
Thanks for posting this article . It was an interesting read !
Fascinating! Thank you so much for sharing this.
It’s easy to understand how Dr. Farbers background inspired him to research which ultimately resulted in the development of Methotrexate. My personal celebration will be if and when Methotrexate enables me to live my life with less pain.
Sidney Farber was an American pediatricpathologist. He is regarded as the father of modern chemotherapy for his work using folic acid antagonists to combat leukemia, which led to the development of other chemotherapeutic agents against other malignancies.
Farber speculated that because cancer cells divide rapidly, they need folate to support the rapid cell growth. He also thought that taking a drug that is a folate inhibitor, such as methotrexate, would slow the progress of cancer. In 1948 Sidney Farber reported the successful use of aminopterin, an anti-folate in the treatment of childhood leukemia.
Because of difficulty in manufacturing aminopterin, the compound was modified to offer easier synthesis; this modified compound was methotrexate. It was not until 1980 that additional beneficial effects of methotrexate in the treatment of patients with refractory RA appeared in the literature. In 1988 methotrexate won FDA approval for treating RA in the US. I was a trustee for Arthritis Care when it was announced for use in UK and I remember all the rheumatologists on the committee getting very exited and saying this drug would be revolutionary for rheumatoid arthritis.
That's basically what the article is about. I didn't know any of that aspect.
I do find the history of drugs quite fascinating. It also reminded me of the meeting when MTX was mentioned and the general excitement about it.
I find history of any sort exciting now. If only it had been different at school!
Kings and queens, dates, dates and dates 😩.
I needed something to occupy my mind recently due to mobility problems so I made a list of all the British monarchs/rulers from Alfred the Great to Charles 111. I have to say there were some I hadn’t heard of. I wonder how the powers that be decide what we should be taught.
I've never been THAT desperate!
Actually I found it very interesting, I can decide what I want to learn about unlike school.
I love archaeology programmes!!
Yes, I used to enjoy the old Time Team programmes. I think for me a lot depends on the presenters. Did you see the programme where they discovered the tomb of Richard (11?/111?) ? I seem to remember that they found out that his scoliosis wasn’t as bad as was originally thought. I stand corrected if I’m wrong.
Richard 111 -Leicester car park ?
I think the commonly held and often exaggerated image of Richard III's deformed body comes from some politically expedient propaganda by Shakespeare. Richard III was the last monarch from the House of York. Following his victory over the Yorkist army at Bosworth (near Leicester), Henry VII from the House of Tudor and decended from the House of Lancaster, became king. That effectively marked the end of the 'wars of the roses' between the houses of Lancaster and York - although there was one further battle (of Stoke). Shakespeare was writing when the Tudor/Lancastrian Elizabeth I ruled, so defaming or satirising Richard of York would play well to the monarchy.
Whatever works for you, I say, but it didn’t work too well for a class of pubescent girls in the late 1950’s . Probably the ‘powers that were’ didn’t want us to get over-excited 😄.
We had a fantastic history teacher at senior school -made it so interesting and was also my form tutor for 4 out of the 5 years I was there.
I agree. I did not even do history O level.
Me neither - you had to choose at third year whether you were a scientist or not. I was one of a few girls doing chemistry, even fewer doing physics.
I did physics with chemistry for O level a double whammy in one. I assume easier than doing them separately for us thickos!!
The only science the "thickos" did was compulsory biology!
Ah I didn’t do that, so perhaps I am not a thicko!
Anything with physics in is hard ...
Ah, I did Physics A level!!
Show off!!!!
and Pure Maths and Applied Maths and Further Maths and Additional Maths!!!
Major show-off! OH did double difficult sums for A levels together with physics. There was something else but I can't remember what - could have been additional maths. Then he did physics at uni. Strange person ...
I gave up after A level. I just loved maths and you did not need to revise for it. A major plus for lazy teenagers.
My class had the same useless female teacher for 3 consecutive years, the parallel class had the brilliant guy. She eventually went off with a mental breakdown and he had the job of catching up 2 years of missed stuff for O-level. He did a sterling job but it was still a lack of basic knowledge that made my attempt at A-level a big struggle so I gave up.
Oh dear, I'm going to add to that. Besides the Physics A level and all the maths, I did Physics S level, plus went to the Chemistry A level lessons without doing any exams, which made it even more fun. (The Head said I was doing enough exams, but let me continue chemistry as the time table allowed it. Wish all learning was like that.) And went on to a Physics degree. And, oh yes, my mother was the Physics teacher. She was hoping, as I also loved them, that I'd do Languages and Literature A levels, or so she said, with a smile.
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.
A little added history....
The Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, Massachusetts is renowned. It is a mecca for people around the world seeking cancer treatment.
In 1947 Dr. Farber founded the Children's Cancer Research Foundation and in 1969 the Foundation expanded to include patients of all ages. In 1974 it became the Sidney Farber Cancer Institute, to honor its founder. The change to its present name was in 1983 to recognize the long term support of Charles A. Dana Foundation who had long financed the Institute and its research.
Having lived on the East Coast of the states I know many people who were given added life and quality of life because of treatment there. Just recently a 34 year old son-in-law of a friend who had stage 4 melanoma and underwent intense treatment and is now in year two cancer free. Another friend whose husband was diagnosed with lymphoma at age 23 was treated there until his passing at age 89 last year; he was a working Maine woods lumberman and arborist all of those years!
(I hope I'm not out of line or off-piste, as you say, in writing this)💞
Interesting, although the first thing that really caught my interest was the incorrect claim that thalidomide was originally intended to relieve nausea in pregnant women. I distinctly remember my father, a GP at that time, saying that thalidomide had not been approved for that use. He was pretty disgusted by what had been happening and it appears, thankfully, that he'd had no part in it. Thalidomide was supposed to be a sedative but was found through use to alleviate nausea.
Very interesting how the same drug can have diverse uses. I take gabapentin for back pain at night but it is also prescribed for anxiety.
Basically - all drugs have "side" effects. If there is a side effect that fits a need - it is used for that. These days they call it "repurposing".
Having lost sight in my left eye from undiagnosed GCA, my opthalmologist kept a close watch on my right eye. When my visual field worsened, I was referred to a neuro-opthalmologist who diagnosed me with occipital neuralgia, right optic nerve. He prescribed Gabapentin, 100mg x three; after a year, I have a small blind spot in that eye. Woohoo! Previously, over 40% of it was dark when tested monthly. I'm thankful for repurposing!!💞
Fascinating read, thank you.
Fascinating insight into the use and re-purposing of drugs. Thanks for posting.
Fascinating, thanks.
Very interesting - thank you!
My partner was on methotrexate for rheumatism. He now has scarred lungs and has been told he has approx 3 years! Is this right when the scarring is caused by drugs or is it for when caused by copd etc
MTX can cause pulmonary fibrosis as an adverse effect and it is very important that any lung problems are reported for screening. It is the drug that causes it but ironically, MTX is associated with reduced rates of exacerbations of COPD in patients who take it.
Very interesting. When I commented to my Rheumatologist on the vast number of potential side-effects of MTX, she said it had been around a long time and, of course, everything has to be reported. I didn't know that it was as old as I am.....! 🤣
Interesting read and for me, particularly, the use of MTX for psoriasis in early times. Whereas the ust of Toscilizimab (TCZ) irritated my psoriasis! Nice to see that these drugs can be put to good use. Thank you, PMRpro
Thanks, an interesting read xx
My husband, after 10 year on prednisolone will be moved to this drug. The details will be shared with him after extensive testing; he will be given the injection. Seems its much less invasive? Many possible side effects, but seems he will not have to use it forever for his PMR.
By definition, injections are more invasive than pills but that aside - has he been led to believe that MTX will get him off pred altogether? If so, that is stretching reality considerably! For a small group of patients, it will work very well but not necessarily get them off pred altogether though some do. For others it may get them to a slightly lower dose of pred but no more. And it does have considerable potential for adverse effects - I lasted a month before I stopped and never went back on it, The fatigue was overwhelming and I had so-called pred effects I had never suffered in years on prednisolone and prednisone. There are no good large-scale studies showing it reduces the pred dose - and one of the small ones used to justify its use did a follow-up after 5 years which found that even though it did reduce the MTX dose, it didn't reduce any of the pred-related adverse effects. Which begs the question - why bother to add another layer of quite unpleasant side effects? Rheumatologists claim that in RA (where it does work) it is well tolerated and effective. In fact, it works well and has no intolerable side effects for a third of patients, for a third they can't cope with it and for a third it simply doesn't show any effect after 6-12 months.