rss
Ann Rheum Dis 2000;59:468-477 doi:10.1136/ard.59.6.468
  • Extended report

Aggressive treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled trial

  1. C H M van Jaarsvelda,
  2. J W G Jacobsa,
  3. M J van der Veenb,
  4. A A M Blaauwa,
  5. A A Kruizea,
  6. D M Hofmana,c,
  7. H L M Brusc,
  8. G A van Albada-Kuipersd,
  9. A H M Heurkensd,
  10. E J ter Borge,
  11. H C M Haanene,
  12. C van Booma-Frankfortf,
  13. Y Schenkf,
  14. J W J Bijlsma on behalf of the Rheumatic Research Foundation Utrecht, The Netherlandsa
  1. aDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Centre, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands, bDepartment of Rheumatology, Hospital Sint Jansdal, PO Box 138, 3840 AC Harderwijk, The Netherlands, cDepartment of Rheumatology, Hospital Hilversum, PO Box 10016, 1201 DA Hilversum, The Netherlands, dDepartment of Rheumatology, Eemland Hospital, PO Box 1502, 3800 MB Amersfoort, The Netherlands, eDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, fDepartment of Rheumatology, Diakonessen Hospital, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582 KE Utrecht, The Netherlands
  1. Dr Jacobs Email: J.W.J.Bijlsma{at}DIGD.AZU.NL
  • Accepted 12 January 2000

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To compare three therapeutic strategies using slow acting antirheumatic drugs (SAARDs) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), for their disease modifying properties, toxicity, and lag time until treatment effect.

METHODS Patients with recent onset RA from six hospitals were randomly assigned to immediate initiation of one of three treatment strategies: (I) a “mild SAARD with a long lag time” (hydroxychloroquine, if necessary replaced by auranofin); (II) a “potent SAARD with a long lag time” (intramuscular gold, if necessary replaced byd-penicillamine); (III) a “potent SAARD with a short lag time” (methotrexate, if necessary replaced by sulfasalazine). Comparisons included two years of follow up.

RESULTS All SAARD strategies reduced mean disease activity. A greater percentage of patients improved clinically with strategies II and III than with strategy I: percentages of patients improved on joint score with strategies II and III (79% and 82%, respectively), which was statistically different from strategy I (66%). The same was true for remission percentages: 31% and 24% v 16%, respectively). Longitudinal analysis showed significantly less disability with strategy III, and a lower erythrocyte sedimentation rate with strategy II than with strategy I. In addition, radiological damage after one and two years, was significantly lower in strategies II and III (at two years median scores were 11 and 10v 14 in strategy I, p<0.05). Toxicity was increased in strategy II compared with the other strategies.

CONCLUSION Strategy III, comprising methotrexate or sulfasalazine, produced the best results weighing effectiveness and toxicity. Strategy I (hydroxychloroquine or auranofin) was slightly less effective, and strategy II (intramuscular gold or d-penicillamine) was associated with increased toxicity.

Footnotes

  • The authors wish to acknowledge C Cornelis, R Huisman, A Jacobs-van Bree, van Mourik, and S van Wijk for the collection of data and their contributions to the Utrecht Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort. Grant support: The Dutch League against Rheumatism (Het Nationaal Reumafonds).

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.