THE CURIOUS CASE OF INTRAMUSCULAR GOLD

To stop the erosion of hope: the DMARD category and the place of semantics in modern rheumatology

The category of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) emerged in the 1970s to describe drugs capable of altering the long-term destructive course of arthritis. It became a core concept in rheumatology’s reorientation towards pharmaceuticals in the late twentieth century. By examining the earliest use of the term “disease-modifying” in scientific publications, this paper identifies the drugs that the category described when it first emerged. Leaning on systematic reviews of each of these drugs towards the end of their career in rheumatology, it then establishes that posterity would not recognize any of these early DMARDs as capable of altering the long-term course of the disease. The notion of disease-modifying drugs was thus originally used to categorize drugs that were not disease-modifying. Instead of interpreting this inconsistency as an anomaly, the paper argues that the DMARD category may have gained currency because it allowed a number of actors to respond pragmatically to an ongoing crisis in the pharmacological approach to treating arthritis. The term offered to conjure prospects of disease-modifying effects regardless of drugsʼ actual capacities, and thus to semantically solve the tensions between needs and means that characterized rheumatology at the time. While shedding light on a pivotal moment in the history of rheumatology, the paper also models an approach to understanding drug categories as meaning-making mechanisms by which people can mediate the sometimes uneasy connections that exist between medical practice and science.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Unraveling the conundrum

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease with a complex and yet not fully understood pathophysiology, where numerous different cell-types contribute to a destructive process of the joints. This complexity results into a considerable interpatient variability in clinical course and severity, which may additionally involve genetics and/or environmental factors. After three decades of focused efforts scientists have now achieved to apply in clinical practice, for patients with RA, the "treat to target" approach with initiation of aggressive therapy soon after diagnosis and escalation of the therapy in pursuit of clinical remission. In addition to the conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, biologics have greatly improved the management of RA, demonstrating efficacy and safety in alleviating symptoms, inhibiting bone erosion, and preventing loss of function. Nonetheless, despite the plethora of therapeutic options and their combinations, unmet therapeutic needs in RA remain, as current therapies sometimes fail or produce only partial responses and/or develop unwanted side-effects. Unfortunately the mechanisms of 'nonresponse' remain unknown and most probable lie in the unrevealed heterogeneity of the RA pathophysiology. In this review, through the effort of unraveling the complex pathophysiological pathways, we will depict drugs used throughout the years for the treatment of RA, the current and future biological therapies and their molecular or cellular targets and finally will suggest therapeutic algorithms for RA management. With multiple biologic options, there is still a need for strong predictive biomarkers to determine which drug is most likely to be effective, safe, and durable in a given individual. The fact that available biologics are not effective in all patients attests to the heterogeneity of RA, yet over the long term, as research and treatment become more aggressive, efficacy, toxicity, and costs must be balanced within the therapeutic equation to enhance the quality of life in patients with RA.

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.

Trace elements in the treatment of rheumatic conditions

The role of trace metallic elements (copper, selenium, zinc, gold) in chronic inflammatory states is of great interest because many of them are co-factors in metabolic processes involving articular tissues and immune system function. Deficiencies of several of these have been documented in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Other than for the clinically approved gold compounds, there exists only inconsistent evidence for a therapeutic role of trace metallic elements in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.