Azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis. A double-blind, cross over study

Metabolism as a Target for Modulation in Autoimmune Diseases

Metabolic pathways are now well recognized as important regulators of immune differentiation and activation, and thus influence the development of autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) has emerged as a key sensor of metabolic stress and an important mediator of proinflammatory lineage specification. Metabolic pathways control the production of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS), which promote mTOR activation and also modulate the antigenicity of proteins, lipids, and DNA, thus placing ROS at the heart of metabolic disturbances during pathogenesis of SLE. Therefore, we review here the pathways that control ROS production and mTOR activation and identify targets for safe therapeutic modulation of the signaling network that underlies autoimmune diseases, focusing on SLE.

The role of thiopurine metabolites in inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatological disorders

Thiopurines have been a cornerstone of medical management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease(IBD) and many rheumatological disorders. The thiopurines are metabolized to their end products, 6-methymercaptopurine (6MMP) and the 6-thioguanine nucleotides (6TGN), with 6TGN being responsible for thiopurine efficacy by causing apoptosis and preventing activation and proliferation of T-lymphocytes. In IBD, conventional weight-based dosing with thiopurines leads to an inadequate response in many patients. Utilizing measurement of these metabolites and then employing dose optimization strategies has led to markedly improved outcomes in IBD. Switching between thiopurines as well as the addition of low-dose allopurinol can overcome adverse events and elevate 6TGN levels into the therapeutic window. There is a paucity of data on thiopurine metabolites in rheumatological diseases and further research is required.

The long-term use of azathioprine in patients with psoriatic arthritis

Despite the widespread use of methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), there are patients who are either refractory, develop toxicity to, or refuse to take methotrexate. In search of an alternative, we studied long-term tolerability of and clinical response to azathioprine (AZA) in PsA patients in comparison with matched controls and followed them in a longitudinal clinic. Twenty-eight of 485 patients followed prospectively between 1978 and 1998 took AZA during their clinic follow-ups. Eighteen of the 28 took AZA for 12 months and were included in the study. AZA was well tolerated by most patients, even in the long-term. Although there was no statistically significant difference in the reduction in number of actively inflamed joints between AZA-treated patients and controls, and AZA was no better in preventing progression of damage, AZA was still as good as the other medications. Consequently, AZA was often given to individuals who had not responded to other medications in the past. We provide illustrative case reports in which AZA also controlled psoriasis, and we conclude that, whereas AZA is not superior to other medications in the treatment of PsA, it may be safely used and it provides an alternative therapy for patients with PsA.

Pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics and antirheumatic drugs in rheumatology

Genomic medicine has raised many expectations with regard to individualized therapies. Drug response is a complex function of many genes interacting with environmental and behavioral factors. In addition, poor prescribing, interactions between drugs and an incomplete understanding of the metabolism of many drugs, which are administered simultaneously to treat concomitant morbidities, are leading causes of the occurrence of adverse drug reactions in chronic non-inflammatory and autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Symptomatic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as disease-modifying drugs, are complicated by drop-outs (poor patient compliance) in a large percentage of patients. Even though intensive and careful monitoring is always clearly advisable, preliminary data suggest that typing of genes controlling the effects, metabolism and response of drugs might be of clinical utility to define the ‘at-risk’ genotype.

Old and new drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: a historical perspective. Part 1: the older drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis is the paradigmatic immune-mediated inflammatory arthropathy and may be of comparatively recent, New World origin. Apart from the symptom-relieving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whose natural congeners have been in use since antiquity for musculoskeletal pain and inflammation, only a dozen drugs or drug classes--the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs--are currently in common use in rheumatoid arthritis. Development of these drugs has been a notable achievement of the 20th century. Some were developed serendipitously (glucocorticoids, antimalarials), some were the product of faulty reasoning (gold, D-penicillamine), and others were applied for plausible reasons but whose mechanism remains unproven (sulfasalazine, methotrexate, minocycline). A minority were originally applied on the basis of actions that remain germane to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis as currently understood (azathioprine, cyclosporine, leflunomide, infliximab, etanercept). Among the latter are the more recently introduced and effective agents. The practical use of these drugs is determined by efficacy-toxicity considerations, which have also driven the recent development of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

A clinical and economic review of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis is one of the most common chronic systemic inflammatory diseases, affecting approximately 1% of the adult population. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been the mainstay of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis when combined with physical therapy and aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Recently, a number of new biological therapies have been introduced for the treatment of this condition and will have a major impact on the future management of this disabling disease. In this review, we summarise data on the efficacy and tolerability of the currently available DMARDs, including gold compounds, antimalarials, penicillamine, cytotoxic drugs (azathioprine and cyclophosphamide), sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, cyclosporin, anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, combination therapy and apheresis. A literature review and quality assessment of economic evaluations of DMARDs is presented, illustrating that there has been a paucity of economic evaluations on these agents and showing the variable quality of those studies that are available. The manuscript also addresses the pharmacoeconomic implications of the new agents for rheumatoid arthritis; the need for formal long term economic evaluations in order to determine the cost effectiveness of these costly, but highly effective, new treatments is emphasised.

Azathioprine for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the short-term effects of azathioprine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline up to and including July 1998 and Embase from 1988-1998. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing azathioprine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted independently by two reviewers (CS, EB); disagreements were resolved by discussion or third party adjudication (MS). The same reviewers (CS, EB) assessed the methodological quality of the trials using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and functional status assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and for adverse reactions. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are presented. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with a total of 81 patients were included in the analysis. Forty patients were randomized to azathioprine and forty-one to placebo. A pooled estimate was calculated for two outcomes. A statistically significant benefit was observed for azathioprine when compared to placebo for tender joint scores. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.98 (95% CI -1.45, -0.50). Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the azathioprine group OR=4.56 (95% CI 1.16, 17.85).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Azathioprine appears to have a statistically significant benefit on the disease activity in joints of patients with RA. This evidence however is based on a small number of patients, included in older trials. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression were not assessed due to lack of data. Toxicity is shown to be higher and more serious than that observed with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Given this high risk to benefit ratio, there is no evidence to recommend the use of azathioprine over other DMARDs.

Hematologic complications of rheumatic disease therapies

Hematologic side effects of rheumatic disease therapies are generally mild and reversible; however, the clinician must be alert for potential profound and life-threatening toxicities. A knowledge of the toxicity patterns for the individual drugs is necessary to anticipate potential complications. Management of acute leukemias and lymphomas arising in patients with connective tissue disorders is particularly challenging. Further data are needed to define the best treatment options and thus enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged for these patients.

Assessing the relative sensitivity to change of rheumatoid arthritis activity measures: is the type of treatment an important third variable?

Observational studies and meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials have been used to identify which measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity are most sensitive to change. These analyses often pool studies of different drugs, although it is not known if arthritis activity measures are differentially responsive to different drugs. In meta-analyses, estimates of the relative sensitivity to change of different measures may also be confounded by differences in drug efficacy, if studies of different drugs contribute different measures to the meta-analysis. To determine if the type of treatment acts as an important effect modifier or confounder in studies of the relative sensitivity to change of arthritis activity measures, we computed effect sizes for four measures (weighted tender joint count, grip strength, duration of morning stiffness, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) used in each of 16 trials of five different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, cyclosporin A, intramuscular gold, and D-penicillamine) in rheumatoid arthritis. In a complete factorial analysis of variance, effect sizes differed significantly among drugs (p = 0.0006), but differed only marginally among measures (p = 0.08). No interaction was detectable between drugs and measures. These results suggested that effect modification by drugs was not present, but that pooled estimates of the sensitivity to change of different measures may be confounded in meta-analyses, if trials of more efficacious drugs contribute different measures than trials of less efficacious drugs. In a similar analysis of 26 trials of nine nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, we found significant differences in effect sizes among measures (p < 0.0001), but no differences among drugs (p = 0.96), and no interaction between drugs and measures. This study suggests that pooled analyses of the relative sensitivity to change of arthritis activity measures based on trials of different disease-modifying drugs may be confounded by drug effects, but confounding by drug effects is unlikely if these meta-analyses are based on trials of different nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although the power of these analyses to detect small interaction effects was limited, effect modification by drugs was not observed, indicating that the measures we examined were not strongly differentially responsive to different drugs.

Rheumatoid arthritis: pathogenesis and early recognition

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, destructive disease characterized by joint pain and swelling, which progresses in a substantial percentage of patients to invasion of bone and cartilage. If not successfully treated, progressive joint destruction results in loss of function, disability, and increased mortality. The time from onset of symptoms to joint destruction is frequently measured in months rather than years. Unfortunately, the time from disease onset to diagnosis and initiation of effective therapy is often prolonged, allowing development of irreversible joint destruction. In order to apply current knowledge to reduce the disability and death associated with progressive RA, the clinician must understand the pathophysiologic stages of the disease as reflected in symptoms, radiography, and biochemical markers. Prognostic factors relevant to RA severity, including factors relevant to RA severity, including serum markers and genetic traits, must also be known so that appropriate therapeutic strategies can be planned. Although current therapy cannot reliably alter the long-term outcome of RA, new approaches are promising. Patients at high risk or who fail to respond to conservative therapy are candidates for earlier, more aggressive strategies using single or possibly combination antirheumatic therapy.

Randomised placebo-controlled study of stopping second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

A favourable benefit/risk ratio for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with second-line drugs has been established only in short-term studies. The present investigation addresses the question of whether RA patients with a good response to long-term treatment with second-line drugs benefit from continuation of such treatment.

METHODS

A 52-week randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre study was conducted to assess the effect of stopping second-line therapy in 285 RA patients with a good long-term therapeutic response. The patients either continued the second-line drug (n = 142) or received a placebo (n = 143). The endpoint was a flare, defined as recurrence of synovitis.

FINDINGS

At entry into the study median duration of second-line drug therapy was 5 years (range 2-33). At 52 weeks the cumulative incidence of a flare was 38% for the placebo group and 22% for the continued therapy group (p = 0.002). The risk of a flare was 2.0 times higher for patients receiving placebo than for those continuing the second-line drug (95% CI 1.27 to 3.17). The same trend was found for each second-line drug separately, with the exception of d-penicillamine. Side-effects that necessitated dose reduction or discontinuation occurred in 2 patients in each group.

INTERPRETATION

Second-line drugs continue to be effective in RA patients who have responded well to initial treatment.

Use of short-term efficacy/toxicity tradeoffs to select second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. A metaanalysis of published clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Preferred drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be those that have maximal efficacy with the least toxicity. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity tradeoffs for drugs frequently used in the treatment of RA.

METHODS

We updated 2 metaanalyses of published clinical trials, by adding trials published through 1990 and trials of azathioprine (AZA). We tested 3 different definitions of efficacy, each plotted against 3 different toxicity measures, for antimalarial drugs, methotrexate (MTX), auranofin, injectable gold, D-penicillamine, sulfasalazine (SSZ), AZA, and placebo. Efficacy measures included composite efficacy (a combination of joint count, grip strength, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), tender joint count alone, and a measure based on how many patients dropped out due to inefficacy. Toxicity measures were the proportion dropping out due to toxicity, the same dropouts with side effects weighted for severity using a modification of a published toxicity index, and the proportion with severe toxicities (defined as a score of at least 7 of 10 on the toxicity index). The latter were usually organ toxicities (e.g., cytopenias and renal involvement).

RESULTS

All 9 efficacy/toxicity tradeoff plots suggested that MTX and antimalarial drugs had the highest efficacy relative to toxicity. MTX scored among the most efficacious of the drugs and, of these, had the least toxicity. Antimalarial drugs, though showing only moderate efficacy, had the lowest toxicity rate of all the drugs. SSZ scored close to MTX but was, in general, slightly more toxic.

CONCLUSION

In the short-term context of clinical trials, antimalarial drugs and MTX have the best efficacy/toxicity tradeoffs and may, therefore, be the preferred drugs.

Short-term effects of antirheumatic drugs

Antirheumatic drugs fall into four categories: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), slow-acting antirheumatic drugs (SAARDs), corticosteroids, and cytotoxic drugs. NSAIDs are useful in controlling the symptoms and signs of inflammation. They work within a few days but patients' response varies widely and is unpredictable. Hence there is a wide choice of agent. Anxiety about the side-effects of NSAIDs, particularly on the stomach and kidney, is growing and their use is likely to decline, especially in the elderly. SAARDs are being used increasingly early in the disease. It is realized that there is only a small window of opportunity (2 years) in which to get the disease into remission before irreversible damage is done to the joints. Thus, there is a growing tendency to use combinations of SAARDs together with steroids early in the disease. The most appropriate treatment for established RA (of more than 2 years duration) is less easy to discern. It is important to define realistic treatment goals on an individual basis and to tailor the medication accordingly. Cytotoxic drugs are still reserved for severe aggressive joint disease or for systemic manifestations. Once we are able to predict outcome more accurately, the stage will be set for a trial of combination chemotherapy in severe early RA.

Therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: combinations of disease-modifying drugs and new paradigms of treatment

The last 10 years have witnessed a change in the way rheumatologists view rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is no longer considered a slowly progressive disease limited to the joints, but rather an aggressive systemic disease that results in clinically significant morbidity early in its course and can contribute to excess mortality. Heightened awareness of the health impact of RA has spurred a search for effective therapy to be applied early in the course of disease for patients with moderate to severe RA. Combinations of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) have become an increasingly popular alternative to sequential monotherapy. In this report, we review published series of patients with RA who have been treated with combinations of DMARDs, sometimes including chemotherapeutic agents, with some critical comment. Published paradigms of treatment are also reviewed and a new strategy is presented. The "step-down bridge" strategy allows early treatment with at least four DMARDs, but may place some patients with mild disease at an inappropriately high risk of adverse effects. The "sawtooth" strategy gives little guidance as to which DMARD(s) should be chosen for initial treatment. We describe a "graduated-step" strategy that provides numerical grading to match disease severity and disease activity with appropriate initial therapy and that facilitates therapeutic decisions throughout the course of treatment.

Methotrexate versus azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A forty-eight-week randomized, double-blind trial

We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial comparing azathioprine (AZA) and methotrexate (MTX) in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in whom parenteral gold and/or D-penicillamine treatment had been unsuccessful. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either AZA (100 mg daily) or oral MTX (7.5 mg weekly). After 8 weeks, the dosage was increased depending on the clinical improvement. Sixty-four patients were followed up for 48 weeks (33 AZA, 31 MTX). Comparison of values at week 24 with baseline values revealed significant improvement in 12 of 13 disease variables in the MTX group and in 6 of 13 in the AZA group. Comparison between the 2 treatment groups at 24 weeks, by area-under-the-curve analysis, showed significantly more improvement in the MTX group in terms of the swollen joint count, pain score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, hemoglobin level, thrombocyte level, and disease activity score. A significant overall clinical improvement (disease activity score) was found in 7 of 20 patients treated with AZA and 18 of 30 patients treated with MTX after 24 weeks of therapy, and in 6 of 12 AZA-treated patients and 19 of 25 MTX-treated patients after 48 weeks. The number of withdrawals due to side effects was significantly higher in the AZA group. After 48 weeks, only 12 patients from the AZA group (36%), but 25 from the MTX group (81%), were still using the initial drug. These results demonstrate MTX to be superior to AZA in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, with a more rapid clinical improvement which is sustained after 1 year, accompanied by a lower rate of serious adverse reactions.

Azathioprine, cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil

Immunosuppressive agents serve a major role in the management of once-fatal conditions such as the systemic necrotizing vasculitides, but they are also being used in more common, chronic inflammatory disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis. The drugs are all capable of reducing cell division but they differ in their modes of action. This is in keeping with their differing rates of action, and different indications. Azathioprine is a valuable alternative to slow-acting antirheumatic drugs in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Cyclophosphamide has transformed the outlook of many forms of vasculitis. Chlorambucil is particularly useful in improving the prognosis for children with amyloidosis secondary to juvenile chronic arthritis. We have tried to highlight the role of these drugs in a number of rheumatic diseases. We have emphasized their clinical applications, with some laboratory evidence for their effects. The major side-effects are reviewed. Finally, we have discussed their possible mechanisms of action.

Methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A two year prospective follow-up

One hundred and thirty seven rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients refractory to D-penicillamine and some of them (15%) refractory to other slow active drugs were treated with oral methotrexate (MTX) (10-15 mg weekly). After 12-24 months of treatment, 94 and 74 patients respectively showed a significant improvement as judged by duration of morning stiffness (p less than 0.0001), grip strength (p less than 0.0001), degree of joint swelling (p less than 0.01) and tenderness (p less than 0.0001) compared to pre-treatment values. This clinical improvement was also associated with a decrease of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p less than 0.001), decrease of C-reactive protein (p less than 0.0001) and with improvement of anaemia (p less than 0.05). No changes were seen in rheumatoid factor titres. Seventy-four of the patients were followed for up to 24 months. Thirty-one of them (23%) had complete remission and 43 (31%) had an excellent response. Adverse drug reaction during MTX therapy included: elevated liver enzymes in 34 patients, mucosal ulcers in 21, nausea and vomiting in 8, diarrhoea in 4, leukopenia in 2, interstitial pneumonitis in one, intestinal bleeding in one and finally septic arthritis in another patient. The majority of these side effects were resolved without sequelae. However, 15 patients (11%) with adverse drug reactions had to discontinue the treatment. Forty-one of our patients who received a cumulative mean dose of MTX of 1550.5 +/- 235.5 mg underwent a percutaneous liver biopsy. Ten patients had normal tissue, 12 had minimal changes, 13 nonspecific changes and 6 patients had mild fibrosis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Rational use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

The currently available, most frequently used disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) include auranofin, azathioprine, D-penicillamine, gold sodium thiomalate, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate (amethopterin) and sulphasalazine. Controlled trials of these agents are reviewed to compare their relative efficacy and tolerability. Tender joint counts decreased with all drugs, as did joint swelling (measured as the percentage of patients with greater than or equal to 50% improvement in joint swelling). Tender joint count decreased by 8 to 57% in drug-treated patients, compared with 3 to 30% (1 study exceeded this degree of placebo response) in the placebo groups. The ratio of drug to placebo improvement usually averaged greater than 2. A 50% improvement in joint swelling occurred in between 15 and 65% of drug-treated patients. Time to onset of response varied from 6 weeks (with methotrexate) to as long as 18 months (some patients on hydroxychloroquine). The remission rate was inconsistent and unusual in controlled studies (5 to 7%), but very high in some open studies (e.g. 43%). While up to 8% of patients on DMARDs stopped therapy secondary to unsatisfactory therapeutic response (with 1 exception) up to 43% of placebo patients discontinued therapy for this reason. The ratio of dropouts for unsatisfactory therapeutic response for DMARD compared to placebo was less than 1 in 16 of 22 studies, and it was usually less than 0.5. Laboratory data examined include ESR, rheumatoid factor (RF), immunoglobulins and radiographic data. Ratios of decreases in ESR, comparing drug and placebo, were usually greater than 2. ESRs decreased from 3.6 to 27 mm/h, with gold sodium thiomalate, auranofin and methotrexate being most effective relative to placebo. RF decreased by greater than or equal to 2 tube dilutions in 15 to 53% of the DMARD groups but also decreased in up to 26% of placebo patients, with ratios of drug: placebo usually greater than 2. Immunoglobulins tended to decrease with DMARDs but the data are fragmentary. Radiographic evidence that a drug slows the rate of bony damage is strong evidence that it is a DMARD. These data, however, are not easily available because measurements of bony damage is insensitive and difficult. The best evidence of radiographic efficacy exists for gold, although the data are not uniform even here. Studies with other DMARDs suffer from lack of convincing control populations, methodological failures or small numbers, although trends exist showing that azathioprine and D-penicillamine (and perhaps sulphasalazine and methotrexate) may also slow bony deterioration. The other side of efficacy, of course, is tolerability.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Cost-effectiveness of inpatient and intensive outpatient treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial

Women with active rheumatoid arthritis who were judged to be in need of hospitalization were assigned at random to receive inpatient therapy (n = 35) or intensive outpatient therapy (n = 36). All relevant costs of treatment were measured. At 19 weeks, clinical outcomes, as summarized in a pooled index, were significantly better in the inpatient group (pooled index units: inpatient 0.72, outpatient 0.25; F[1,69] = 10.9, P = 0.002). Inpatient therapy produced a sustained three-fold increase in efficacy, at a 2.5-fold increase in cost to society.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The management of the rheumatoid patient involves the considered use of pharmacologic agents as therapies to induce symptomatic relief and to reduce disease activity. Aspirin and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are used initially to lessen the degree of pain and swelling associated with the inflammatory disease process. The aggressive institution of second-line therapy, previously known as disease-modifying antiinflammatory rheumatic drugs, is advocated to modify the disease course itself. These second-line treatments include antimalarials, gold salts, methotrexate, d-penicillamine, and azathioprine. Randomized placebo controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of these compounds in this illness. Improvement in standard parameters of disease activity (number of painful and swollen joints, duration of morning stiffness, erythrocyte sedimentation rate) can be related to the therapeutic value of second-line agents. Whether they modify radiographic progression is under rigorous study. Newer therapies under research investigation include sulfasalazine, cyclosporin A, and combination therapy.

Lymphoid irradiation in intractable rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term followup of patients treated with 750 rads or 2,000 rads

Twenty patients with intractable rheumatoid arthritis were randomized to receive 750 or 2,000 rads of lymphoid irradiation (LI) in a double-blind comparative study, and were followed for a maximum of 48 months (mean 40 months) after treatment. During followup, sustained immunomodulation (including lymphopenia, particularly of the T helper cell subset; reduced ratio of helper cells to suppressor cells; and impaired in vitro lymphocyte proliferation in response to phytohemagglutinin and pokeweed mitogen) was observed. Significant improvements in early morning stiffness, Ritchie articular index, pain score, grip strength, and 15-meter walk time were observed in both treatment groups, but these were not sustained through the followup period. Progressive joint damage was observed radiologically in both groups during followup. Thus, LI induced sustained immunosuppression, but resulted in only short-lived clinical improvement and was associated with progressive joint erosion in these patients.

Low-dose methotrexate compared with azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A twenty-four-week controlled clinical trial

Forty-two patients with definite or classic rheumatoid arthritis entered a prospective 24-week, double-blind, parallel clinical trial, followed by an 18-month open phase. All subjects had active synovitis that was unresponsive to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications and conventional slow-acting antirheumatic drugs. Initial treatment with azathioprine (AZA), 100 mg/day, or methotrexate (MTX), 10 mg/week, orally, was adjusted at predefined intervals. Both treatment groups showed statistically significant improvement at week 24, compared with baseline status, in all 9 clinical outcome variables. There were no apparent statistically significant differences in these outcome variables between the 2 treatment groups. There was a trend toward a more marked and rapid improvement in the MTX-treated group. Radiologic evidence of progression of joint damage was similar in both treatment groups at 24 and 52 weeks. Four of the 42 patients (2 receiving MTX and 2 receiving AZA) discontinued the study because of side effects, and 1 MTX-treated patient withdrew because of personal reasons. Outcome measures at week 52 (open phase) were not statistically different from those at week 24. Twenty-three patients were still taking the medication at week 104. We found that AZA and MTX were similarly effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and that this beneficial effect was maintained for up to 2 years in most patients.

Lymphoid irradiation in intractable rheumatoid arthritis. A double-blind, randomized study comparing 750-rad treatment with 2,000-rad treatment

Twenty patients with intractable rheumatoid arthritis were treated with 750-rad or 2,000-rad lymphoid irradiation in a randomized double-blind comparative study. Over a 12-month followup period, there was a significant improvement in 4 of 7 and 6 of 7 standard parameters of disease activity following treatment with 750 rads and 2,000 rads, respectively. Transient, short-term toxicity was less frequent with the lower dose. In both groups, there was a sustained peripheral blood lymphopenia, a selective depletion of T helper (Leu-3a+) lymphocytes, and reduced in vitro mitogen responses. These changes did not occur, however, in synovial fluid. These results suggest that 750-rad lymphoid irradiation is as effective as, but less toxic than, that with 2,000 rads in the management of patients with intractable rheumatoid arthritis.

Treatment of refractory chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy with lymphoid irradiation

Four patients with refractory or poorly responsive chronic progressive demyelinating polyneuropathy (CPDP) were treated with total lymphoid irradiation (total dose, 2000 rad) in an uncontrolled feasibility study. All patients had previously failed conventional therapy for CPDP, as well as other unconventional treatments. During a follow-up period of 7 to 12 months after total lymphoid irradiation, there was a profound and sustained suppression of the absolute lymphocyte count and in vitro lymphocyte function, as well as an increase in the ratio of Leu-2 (suppressor/cytotoxic subset) to Leu-3 (helper/inducer subset) T cells in the blood. Three of the four patients demonstrated improvement in distal muscle strength, and this was associated with increased functional capabilities in two patients. In contrast, no clinical improvement in sensation was noted in any patient. Nerve conduction studies showed patchy improvement in three patients. The results of this preliminary uncontrolled study indicate that radiotherapy deserves further study in the treatment of CPDP.

Azathioprine versus D-penicillamine in rheumatoid arthritis patients who have been treated unsuccessfully with gold

Two hundred six patients were entered into a prospective controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing azathioprine (AZA) 1.25-1.5 mg/kg/day with D-penicillamine (DP) 10-12 mg/kg/day. One hundred thirty-four patients completed 24 weeks of therapy. Improvement in nearly all efficacy variables was seen in both groups. Patients taking DP demonstrated a greater rise in hemoglobin concentration and greater fall in erythrocyte sedimentation rate than patients receiving AZA; these were the only efficacy variables with a significant difference between the treatment groups. Fewer withdrawals for adverse reactions occurred among the patients receiving AZA, but the difference was not significant. Patients receiving AZA were withdrawn from the drug mainly for abnormal liver function test results, nausea and gastrointestinal upset, and leukopenia. The main reasons for withdrawal of patients receiving DP were nausea, rash and pruritus, thrombocytopenia, dysgeusia, and proteinuria.

Resistant rheumatoid arthritis. What to do when conservative therapy doesn't work

A significant number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis fail to obtain satisfactory disease suppression with conservative therapy. What other means of treatment are available? In what order should they be introduced? What are the potential side effects? The authors address these questions in the following review of management of resistant rheumatoid arthritis.

Azathioprine and cyclophosphamide as slow-acting drugs for rheumatoid arthritis

Therapy with azathioprine and cyclophosphamide is described as reducing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. The well recognized untoward effects are tractable save for the definite augmentation of carcinogenesis, a measurable risk that is regarded as acceptable in treating rheumatoid arthritis with azathioprine and rheumatoid arteritis with cyclophosphamide.

Does drug therapy slow radiographic deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis?

Many clinicians believe that slow-acting therapeutic agents, such as fold, penicillamine, the antimalarials, and cytotoxic drugs, can retard joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis. We reviewed 60 published studies employing these drugs to evaluate critically the evidence that drug therapy can slow the radiographic progression of disease. Seventeen studies were found that included radiographic assessment of both treated and control groups; they were analyzed using methodologic criteria known to be important in affecting the results of drug trials. In addition to numerous qualitative methodologic deficiencies, many studies showed inadequacies in sample size and duration of treatment, and the drug dosage used varied from one study to another. We found evidence suggesting that both gold and cyclophosphamide can retard radiographic progression of joint destruction. At present, there are too few technically adequate studies to permit even provisional conclusions concerning other agents.

Sustained improvement of intractable rheumatoid arthritis after total lymphoid irradiation

Total lymphoid irradiation (TLI) was administered to 11 patients who had intractable rheumatoid arthritis that was unresponsive to conventional medical therapy, including aspirin, multiple nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, gold salts, and D-penicillamine. Total lymphoid irradiation was given as an alternative to cytotoxic drugs such as azathioprine and cyclophosphamide. After radiotherapy, 9 of the 11 patients showed a marked improvement in clinical disease activity as measured by morning stiffness, joint tenderness, joint swelling, and overall functional abilities. The mean improvement of disease activity in all patients ranged from 40-70 percent and has persisted throughout a 13-28 month followup period. This improvement permitted the mean daily steroid dose to be reduced by 54%. Complications included severe fatigue and other constitutional symptoms during radiotherapy, development of Felty's syndrome in 1 patient, and an exacerbation of rheumatoid lung disease in another. After therapy, all patients exhibited a profound T lymphocytopenia, and a reversal in their T suppressor/cytotoxic cell to helper cell ratio. The proliferative responses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to phytohemagglutinin, concanavalin A, and allogeneic leukocytes (mixed leukocyte reaction) were markedly reduced, as was in vitro immunoglobulin synthesis after stimulation with pokeweed mitogen. Alterations in T cell numbers and function persisted during the entire followup period, except that the mixed leukocyte reaction showed a tendency to return to normal values.

Low dose oral methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: an uncontrolled trial and review of the literature

New therapeutic alternatives are needed for patients with progressive RA unresponsive to gold or D-penicillamine. Azathioprine and cyclophosphamide can be effective but have been linked with the development of lymphoreticular malignancies. In an effort to exploit a less toxic agent, we have been impressed by the results and minimal toxicity of low dose oral MTX. Extensive application of this regimen in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis indicates that low dose MTX does not have an unusual risk for developing cancer. In addition, prior experience with other rheumatic disorders and preliminary studies on the mechanism of action suggest a potential value in RA. We present our initial retrospective results in 28 patients with refractory RA given low dose oral MTX over the past 2.5 yr. An apparent positive response was noted in 19 of these patients (67%) and is similar to the experience of other clinicians. At the same time, the toxicity has been low and, with one exception, amenable to dose modification. Methotrexate in various regimens is being increasingly employed in refractory RA. Issues concerning the pharmacology and potential toxicity are, therefore, important. These topics are reviewed with emphasis on low dose therapy and hepatotoxicity. Despite the encouraging preliminary results it is unclear whether MTX can prevent erosions or improve long-term function and quality of life in RA. There are still no controlled perspective studies comparing MTX to placebo or other immunosuppressive agents in RA. Although short-term toxicity is low, long-term toxicity, especially hepatic, is uncertain. As a result, a controlled, long-term prospective study is necessary.

Rheumatoid knee synovitis successfully treated with intra-articular rifamycin SV

Thirty rheumatoid patients with persistent knee effusion were treated intra-articularly with rifamycin SV, 500 mg weekly, or with saline solution, 10 ml, in a double-blind study. A complete disappearance of effusion and an impressive clinical improvement was observed in the patients on rifamycin. The synovial fluid and membrane underwent some changes. In 2 patients the rifamycin caused a painful local reaction. After a follow-up of 5 years only one patient has experienced effusion relapse, 5 months after the termination of rifamycin SV treatment. The patients on saline showed no significant change. On the basis of the results obtained from the monoarthritis experimental model and from clinical trials it is tempting to consider that rifamycin has an antimitotic effect, impeding the synthesis of RNA and DNA polymerases in immunocompetent cells.

Long-term azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind study

Several studies have demonstrated the beneficial effect of azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis. But fears have been expressed about the possible mutagenic and teratogenic effects of prolonged use. If the drug could be withdrawn once remission is achieved, and this remission be then maintained with other agents, the possible complications of long-term therapy might be avoided. A double-blind controlled study was carried out over 8 months in 32 patients receiving long-term azathioprine therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Substitution of placebo for active drug resulted in clinical deterioration.