Number of patients whose assigned strategies were discontinued and reasons for discontinuation
| Strategy2-150 | Period (years) | Patients who discontinued strategy No (%) | Reasons for discontinuation2-151 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse reaction | Ineffectiveness | Adverse reaction and ineffectiveness | Other | ||||
| I | 0–1 | 12 (11) | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1–2 | 17 (16) | 5 | 10 | 2 | 0 | ||
| 0–2 | 29 (27) | 5 | 22 | 2 | 0 | ||
| II | 0–1 | 4 (4) | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1–2 | 26 (26) | 15 | 9 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 0–2 | 30 (30) | 16 | 11 | 1 | 2 | ||
| III | 0–1 | 11 (10) | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | |
| 1–2 | 10 (10) | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0–2 | 21 (20) | 7 | 11 | 1 | 2 | ||
↵2-150 Strategy I: mild slow acting antirheumatic drug (SAARD) with an expected long lag time: hydroxychloroquine or auranofin.
Strategy II: potent SAARD with an expected long lag time: intramuscular gold or d-penicillamine.
Strategy III: potent SAARD with a relatively short lag time: methotrexate or sulfasalazine.
Discontinuation rates after one and two years were not statistically significantly different between the three strategies.
↵2-151 Results are shown as number of patients.