Azathioprine in early rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with gold and chloroquine

Monotreatment With Conventional Antirheumatic Drugs or Glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

This is the first network meta-analysis to assess outcomes associated with multiple conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid.

Objective

To analyze clinical outcomes after treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Data Sources

With no time restraint, English language articles were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant meta-analyses until September 15, 2022.

Study Selection

Four reviewers in pairs of 2 independently included controlled studies randomizing patients with rheumatoid arthritis to mono-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoid, placebo, or nonactive treatment that recorded at least 1 outcome of tender joint count, swollen joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein level. Of 1098 assessed articles, 130 articles (132 interventions) were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline, and data quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 2. Data were extracted by a single author and checked independently by 2 authors. Data were analyzed using a random effect model, and data analysis was conducted from June 2021 to February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A protocol with hypothesis and study plan was registered before data recording. The most complete of recorded outcomes (tender joint count) was used as primary outcome, with imputations based on other outcomes to obtain a full analysis of all studies. Absolute change adjusted for baseline disease activity was assessed.

Results

A total of 29 interventions in 275 treatment groups among 132 randomized clinical trials (mean [range], 71.0% [27.0% to 100%] females in studies; mean [range] of ages in studies, 53 [36 to 70] years) were identified, which included 13 260 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The mean (range) duration of RA was 79 (2 to 243) months, and the mean (range) disease activity score was 6.3 (4.0 to 8.8). Compared with placebo, oral methotrexate was associated with a reduced tender joint count by 5.18 joints (95% credible interval [CrI], 4.07 to 6.28 joints). Compared with methotrexate, glucocorticoid (-2.54 joints; 95% CrI, -5.16 to 0.08 joints) and remaining drugs except cyclophosphamide (6.08 joints; 95% CrI, 0.44 to 11.66 joints) were associated with similar or lower tender joint counts.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's results support the present role of methotrexate as the primary reference conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

The role of anti-malarials in rheumatoid arthritis – the American experience

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease with significant morbidity and functional disability. The traditional treatment for RA relied on the use of NSAIDs early in the disease course, followed by disease-modifying agents later. More recently, the disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have become the mainstay of RA therapy because of the recognition of their superior efficacy/toxicity profile. The antimalarial drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, are some of the most commonly used DMARDs in the management of RA. They have been shown to be significantly more effective than NSAIDs alone in several clinical trials, and have a benign toxicity profile. A combination of hydroxychloroquine with methotrexate appears to reduce significantly the hepatic toxicity of methotrexate. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and toxicity profiles of the antimalarial drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.

Pharmacology of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine

The 4-aminoquinolines are weak bases that are completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, sequestered in peripheral tissues, metabolized in the liver to pharmacologically active by-products, and excreted via the kidneys and the feces. The parent drugs and metabolites are excreted with a half-life of elimination of approximately 40 days. However, slow release from sequestered stores of the drugs means that after discontinuation, they continue to be released into the plasma for years. Correct dosing is based on the ideal body weight of the patient, which depends on height. The 4AQs diminish autoimmunity without compromising immunity to infections.

What have we learnt about the development and progression of early RA from RCTs?

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) use the core set of measures proposed by consensus meetings in the 1990s; these include tender and swollen joint counts, pain, global assessments, disability, and acute-phase responders such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Trials in early RA generally assess three key outcomes based on this core data set: symptoms and signs of inflammatory arthritis, progression of disability, and erosive damage. Adverse events are also recorded. This chapter considers the lessons learned from the various trials in terms of benefits and adverse effects of different treatment regimens.

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.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a challenging objective. Recent trends have led to the earlier and more "aggressive" treatment of patients with active disease. This change in outlook is largely the result of the recognition that significant damage can occur fairly soon after the onset of disease. This article reviews the currently available therapies, including a discussion of the benefits and side effects associated with individual agents. In addition, possible approaches to the treatment of RA will be reviewed.

Role of antimalarials in rheumatoid arthritis – the British experience

Antimalarials have been used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for over 40 years, the first report of suggestive efficacy being published in 1951. Over the years they have become part of the established treatment of RA being one of a category of drugs referred to as disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The onset of action with antimalarials is slow. Most patients use these drugs in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. This article reviews the evidence for the efficacy of antimalarials, their place in comparison to other DMARDs and comments on the current use in RA as perceived in British rheumatology.

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.

Antimalarials in rheumatic diseases

The antimalarials hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine remain established and effective agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Although the mechanisms of action remain uncertain, evidence is accumulating that the antirheumatic and immunological effects of the antimalarials are related to their massive distribution into the cellular acid-vesicle system. These drugs are attracting new interest because their relative safety recommends their use in early rheumatoid arthritis and as a component of second-line antirheumatic drug combinations. The absence of data examining the effect of antimalarials upon radiological progression of rheumatoid arthritis needs to be rectified. Recent understanding of the pharmacokinetics of these drugs reveals that steady-state concentrations are not achieved for at least 3-4 months. Preliminary information also suggests a relationship between blood concentrations and effect. Taken together, these data suggest that more effective dosage regimens will be possible when therapeutic concentration ranges are properly established.

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.

The comparative efficacy and toxicity of second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Results of two metaanalyses

We performed 2 metaanalyses of placebo-controlled and comparative clinical trials to examine the relative efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX), injectable gold, D-penicillamine (DP), sulfasalazine (SSZ), auranofin (AUR), and antimalarial drugs, the second-line drugs most commonly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). For the efficacy study, we applied a set of inclusion criteria and focused on trials which provided information on tender joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or grip strength. We found 66 clinical trials that contained 117 treatment groups of interest, and for each drug, we combined the treatment groups. For each outcome, results showed that AUR tended to be weaker than other second-line drugs. The results of the 3 outcome measures were synthesized into a composite measure of outcomes, and AUR was significantly weaker than MTX (P = 0.006), injectable gold (P less than 0.0001), DP (P less than 0.0001), and SSZ (P = 0.009) and was slightly, but not significantly, weaker than antimalarial agents (P = 0.11). We also found heterogeneity among antimalarial agents, in that patients treated with chloroquine did better than those treated with hydroxychloroquine. We found little difference in efficacy between MTX, injectable gold, DP, and SSZ. A power analysis showed that a trial should contain at least 170 patients per treatment group to successfully differentiate between more effective and less effective (e.g., AUR) second-line drugs. None of the reported interdrug comparative trials we reviewed were this large. For the toxicity study, our inclusion criteria captured RA trials which reported the proportion of patients who discontinued therapy because of drug toxicity and the total proportion who dropped out. We found 71 clinical trials that contained 129 treatment groups. The average proportion who dropped out and the average proportion who dropped out because of drug toxicity were computed for each drug. Overall, 30.2% of the patients in these trials dropped out; 50% of them did so because of drug toxicity. Injectable gold had higher toxicity rates (P less than 0.05) and higher total dropout rates (P less than 0.01) than any other drug; 30% of gold-treated patients dropped out because of side effects versus 15% of all trial patients. Antimalarial drugs and AUR had relatively low rates of toxicity; the rate for MTX was imprecise because of discrepancies between trials. Thus, of the commonly used second-line drugs, AUR is the weakest, and injectable gold is the most toxic. Agents introduced in the future will be compared with these drugs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Analysis of improvement in individual rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, based on the findings in patients treated with placebo. The Cooperative Systematic Studies of Rheumatic Diseases Group

A composite index for estimating improvement in individual rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients during trials of slow-acting, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) was developed by analyzing the responses of 130 placebo-treated participants in Cooperative Systematic Studies of Rheumatic Diseases studies. If responses in 4 of 6 selected measures were required for improvement (by greater than or equal to 20% for morning stiffness, Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate, joint pain/tenderness score, and joint swelling score, and by greater than or equal to 2 grades on a 5-grade scale, or from grade 2 to grade 1 for patient's and physician's overall assessments of current disease severity), few placebo-treated patients qualified as improved, whereas significantly more DMARD-treated patients demonstrated improvement. The proposed index appears to be useful in estimating the probability that an RA patient will improve if taking a placebo during a DMARD trial, and may be a useful tool for analysis of DMARD studies.

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.

Bioavailability of hydroxychloroquine tablets in healthy volunteers

1. Five healthy volunteers received, in a randomised crossover design study, a 155 mg oral tablet and an intravenous infusion of 155 mg racemic hydroxychloroquine (200 mg hydroxychloroquine sulphate) to assess the bioavailability of the commercially available tablet (Plaquenil, Winthrop Laboratories, Australia). 2. The terminal elimination half-life of hydroxychloroquine is more than 40 days, thus blood and urine samples were collected for 5 months following each dose to characterise adequately the terminal elimination phase and obtain accurate estimates of the areas under the concentration-time curves. 3. The mean (+/- s.d.) fraction of the oral dose absorbed, estimated from the blood and urine data, was 0.74 (+/- 0.13). A wide range of estimates of the fraction of the oral dose absorbed was calculated from the plasma data (0.41 - 1.53), reflecting the difficulties of accurate measurement of hydroxychloroquine in plasma. 4. A period of 6 months is required to achieve 96% of steady-state levels of hydroxychloroquine with the usual once daily, oral dosage regimen. Pharmacokinetic factors may thus be partly responsible for the delayed action of the drug in rheumatic conditions. 5. Haemodialysis will not aid in the case of oral overdose with hydroxychloroquine. Although the proportionate increase in clearance may be large, the increase in the fraction of the dose excreted will be negligible. The extensive sequestration of the drug by tissues limits effectiveness of haemodialysis.

Hydroxychloroquine treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

A variety of placebo-controlled and open studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The excellent responses to recurrent treatment in a sample patient illustrate the value of hydroxychloroquine. Because low daily doses of hydroxychloroquine are associated with greater ophthalmologic safety, it would be advantageous to use the smallest effective daily dose, but there are no published controlled efficacy studies using daily doses of less than 400 mg. Hydroxychloroquine may best be employed to treat patients with new onset of disease or those in whom disease is not rapidly progressive. Great potential exists for the use of hydroxychloroquine in combination therapy, but optimal utilization of combination regimens will require performances of additional controlled studies.

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.

Modern management of rheumatoid arthritis

The management of rheumatoid arthritis can be challenging even to the most experienced and astute physician. The rheumatoid inflammatory process can be profound, ravaging, and unremitting, and the illness is notorious for its protean manifestations and capricious course. Moreover, the response to therapy is unpredictable, although it can be quite successful in many cases. Nevertheless, the intense pain, profound disability, progressive destructive arthropathy, and negative psychological milieu that haunt patients demand that something be done therapeutically. Rheumatoid arthritis responds best to a symphony of therapeutic modalities including drugs, rehabilitation, joint surgery, and attention to psychosocial issues. The foundation of any successful therapeutic venture is an educational program designed, however simply, to imbue the patient and family with an understanding of the disease and its course and treatment, and with realistic expectations. Drug therapy is often polypharmaceutical, employing analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, both local and systemic corticosteroids, and remission-inducing drugs. Pacing of lifestyle, physical and/or occupational therapy, vocational guidance, psychological and sexual counseling, and social intervention are as much a part of modern management in rheumatoid arthritis as are drugs. The extra-articular (systemic) manifestations are addressed in a variety of ways depending upon the type and severity of involvement. Although most patients can be treated by their primary care physician, some may require the expertise provided by a specialist. Finally, despite the lack of a cure for rheumatoid arthritis, most patients respond well to treatment and return to their desired activities of daily living.

Azathioprine in 50 rheumatoid arthritic patients intolerant or unresponsive to gold or penicillamine

This is a retrospective review of 50 rheumatoid patients who had experienced side effects with gold and/or penicillamine and who were treated with azathioprine in routine clinical practice. The mean duration of the disease at commencement of azathioprine was 9.4 years; despite attempts to maintain the dose at 2.5 mg/kg.d because of minor side effects the average daily dose was 1.68 mg/kg.d. By one year, 11 (22%) had discontinued the drug due to side effects; 6 (12%) had not improved in any respect, 20 (40%) had a reduction in the total number of active joints with maintenance of function and in 13 (26%) the total number of active joints had been reduced by more than a half. During year 2 a further 4 discontinued therapy for adverse reactions. No further formal analysis has been performed though 31 patients were still on the drug with a mean duration of therapy for a period of 5 years. Ten of these had less than half their originally affected joints still active; this condition was usually associated with a fall in ESR and rise in haemoglobin but this was not invariable.

Mechanisms of action and clinical applications of cytotoxic drugs in rheumatic disorders

Failure to suppress disease activity in certain rheumatic disorders such as systemic lupus, polyarteritis nodosa, or Wegener's granulomatosis may significantly heighten the probability of a fatal outcome. In other rheumatic disorders (for example, rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis) the disease left unchecked may indeed be severely crippling but rarely is it fatal. Thus the decision on whether to add a cytotoxic drug often evolves into a benefit-to-risk analysis, a decision in which the patient must also be intimately involved. There are two few well-controlled studies of the use of cytotoxic agents to make dogmatic statements regarding their use in the treatment of rheumatic disorders. Nevertheless, a review of the literature, some of which has been cited above, does permit one to make some reasoned judgments in choosing a drug for a particular disease (Table 2).

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.

A single-blind comparative study of auranofin and hydroxychloroquine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Forty patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with auranofin 3 mg b.d. or hydroxychloroquine 200 mg b.d. Twenty patients received each drug. Efficacy was analysed by comparing patients with available data at weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48 with baseline within each treatment group, and between treatment groups at each of these same time points. There were statistically significant improvements in all measured parameters of clinical efficacy among hydroxychloroquine treated patients, and in all efficacy parameters except one (time to onset of fatigue) in the auranofin treatment group. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups for any parameter of clinical efficacy. Of the laboratory parameters measured, only auranofin treatment produced statistically significant decreases in the concentration of IgA, IgG and IgM, with significant differences between treatments being detected in the case of IgA and IgG. Eight auranofin-treated and three hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were withdrawn because of adverse reactions before completing 48 weeks treatment. The commonest reason for stopping auranofin treatment was diarrhoea (5 cases). Three hydroxychloroquine-treated and two auranofin-treated patients were withdrawn from the study because of inefficacy of the trial drug. Auranofin had a more 'potent' biochemical profile than hydroxychloroquine, although more patients tolerated one year of treatment with the latter drug.

Controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine and D-penicillamine singly and in combination in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

A 2-year, controlled, double-blind trial of D-penicillamine and hydroxychloroquine either alone or in combination was conducted on patients with progressive rheumatoid arthritis. The group given D-penicillamine alone improved most, but a linear fall-off in efficacy occurred. Surprisingly, the group receiving combination drug therapy did not fare as well as the group receiving D-penicillamine therapy. A subset of patients receiving hydroxychloroquine therapy had prolonged benefit. Toxicity, though not uncommon, was generally not severe.

Antimalarial drugs for rheumatoid arthritis

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine effectively suppress rheumatoid arthritis with a superior benefit to risk ratio. Controlled studies demonstrate moderate efficacy in about 70 percent of patients. High-grade suppression is seen in 15 percent and partial suppression in 55 percent. The dropout rate for poor efficacy is 30 percent and for side effects 3 to 7 percent. Most studies show antimalarials to be almost equivalent to chrysotherapy in potency. Antimalarials are indicated for active rheumatoid arthritis not optimally controlled with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and for all cases of progressive disease. Therapy is continued indefinitely. Safe use of these drugs depends on daily dosage. With the single exception of late stage retinopathy, other adverse effects are fully reversible. Strict adherence to three tested safety rules virtually eliminates retinopathy and prevents loss of vision: (1) limit the daily dosage: chloroquine 3.5 to 4.0 mg/kg per day or hydroxychloroquine 6.0 to 6.5 mg/kg per day based on lean body weight; (2) subject the patient to an annual ocular examination to age 65, twice annually thereafter; (3) adjust treatment for pharmacokinetic variables. The lower risk and nearly comparable efficacy make antimalarials first choice among remittive drugs.

Chloroquine in long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The effect of long-term (18-70 months) chloroquine treatment 250 mg daily, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was studied in 20 patients. Sedimentation rates were significantly reduced, as compared to a reference group of 10 RA patients on no treatment of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Radiographical progression of the disease was low in the majority of chloroquine-treated patients but not significantly different from the finding in the patients of the reference group. Rapid radiographical progression during 2-3 years was, however, observed in 5 patients despite chloroquine treatment.

Remission-inducing therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is characterized by immunologically mediated chronic inflammation of synovial structures. Remission-inducing drugs, such as gold compounds, antimalarials, and D-penicillamine, have been shown to suppress disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis while having minimal nonspecific anti-inflammatory properties. The possibility that these agents are effective because they modulate the underlying immunologic reactivity prompted an examination of the immunosuppressive properties of these drugs. The evidence indicates that immunosuppression is an action that is shared by these agents and thus supports the view that remission induction may result from suppression of the immunologic activity that underlies rheumatoid inflammation. Despite the fact that these agents can function as immunosuppressives, each appears to have a unique site of action, specifically inhibiting the function of only one of the populations of cells likely to be involved in chronic immunologically mediated inflammation. Gold compounds and anti-malarials appear to be active by virtue of their capacity to depress various functions of mononuclear phagocytes, while D-penicillamine acts by inhibiting a number of the activities of T lymphocytes. These results imply that the means by which these drugs suppress rheumatoid inflammation are fundamentally different. This suggests the conclusion that the remission-inducing drugs may be classified as T cell-active and mononuclear phagocyte-active agents. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis should thus be helpful in deciding which of these classes of drugs is appropriate in individual cases.

Pharmacologic actions of 4-aminoquinoline compounds

The pharmacokinetics, physiologic effects, and the metabolization of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are all similar. Their concentrations in plasma and tissue are directly related to daily dosing. The highest concentrations are found in melanin-containing tissues, particularly the choroid and ciliary body of the eye. The pharmacologic effects of 4-aminoquinoline compounds are reviewed in detail. It is likely that the rheumatologic effectiveness of these agents is primarily related to lysosomal actions. The drug-induced lysosomal abnormalities include diminished vesicle fusion, diminished exocytosis, and reversible "lysosomal storage disease." It is likely that the retinal toxicity of these drugs is one manifestation of the altered lysosomal physiology involving the retinal pigmented epithelium. Tissue of retinal pigmented epithelium is similar to that of the bone-marrow-derived macrophage. Depression of extra-oculogram is an early sign of excessive dosage and can be used to measure potential toxicity during therapy with 4-aminoquinolines. Dosages ranging from 3.5 to 4.0 mg/kg per day for chloroquine and 6.0 to 6.5 mg/kg per day for hydroxychloroquine are clinically safe.

Serum biochemistry in relation to the action of azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis

In a long-term study we have been comparing biochemical changes in the blood of patients with classical or definite rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when groups of patients are treated for the first time with specific anti-rheumatoid drugs for a six-month period. One such group was treated for 26 weeks with azathioprine. Biochemical and clinical assessments were made at each of 10 clinic visits during the treatment period. Side-effects prevented six patients completing the study. Clinical improvement in the remaining patients was accompanied by a reduction in acute phase proteins, increases in total serum sulphydryl and serum histidine, but little or no change in immunological variables. Comparison of correlation matrices constructed between clinical and laboratory variables for azathioprine and drugs previously tested suggests that azathioprine is more effective than a control group on aspirin alone and in some ways comparable with D-penicillamine.

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.

Antimalarials in rheumatic diseases

The use of antimalarials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE) has declined over recent years due to concern over retinal toxicity and the impression that this class of drugs is relatively ineffective in rheumatic diseases. Recent reviews suggest that this position should be changed. Firstly, there is now good evidence for the efficacy of these drugs in RA and secondly strict control of the daily dosage and careful ophthalmological surveillance can almost eliminate the risk of serious retinal toxicity.

Azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind study of full versus half doses versus placebo

To test whether azathioprine in effective in rheumatoid arthritis in doses smaller than those normally used the drug was tested at 2 dosage levels, 2.5 and 1.25 mg/kg/day (2.5 AZ and 1.25 AZ), against placebo under double-blind conditions over 24 weeks. Dropouts were 7 out of 15 in the 2.5 AZ group, 4 out of 14 in the 1.25 AZ group, and 2 out of 13 in the placebo group. Some significant improvement occurred in all 3 groups, including those on placebo. However, the 2.5 AZ group fared significantly better than the placebo group, while the 1.25 AZ group results tended to fall between the other 2 groups. We conclude that, in order to obtain the reported effectiveness of azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis, it is necessary to start treatment with 2.5 mg/kg/day. Halving this dosage reduces the effectiveness of the drug.

Laser therapy of rheumatoid arthritis

Thirty people with classical or definite rheumatoid arthritis received laser exposure to a Q-switch neodymium laser that operated at 1.06 micrometer with an output of 15 joules/cm2 for 30 nsec. One hand was lased at the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) and metacarpal phalangeal (MCP) joints, whereas the other hand was sham lased. The patient, physician, and occupational therapy evaluators did not know which hand was being lased. Twenty-one patients noted improvement of both their MCP and PIP joints of both hands during laser therapy. Twenty-seven noted improvement of their PIP joints and 26 noted improvement of the MCP joints during therapy. Heat, erythema, pain, swelling, and tenderness all improved with time in both hands, but the lased hand had more significant improvement in erythema and pain. There was also significant improvement in grasp and tip pressure on the lased side. The level of circulating immune complexes as measured by platelet aggregation decreased during lasing. The improvement may be related to laser exposure. The exact role that laser radiation has upon rheumatoid arthritis and its mechanism of action remain to be elucidated.