You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 69, Issue 6
  • Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

Article Text

Article menu
Clinical and epidemiological research
Extended report
Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis
  1. Cécile Gaujoux-Viala1,2,
  2. Josef S Smolen3,
  3. Robert Landewé4,
  4. Maxime Dougados2,
  5. Tore K Kvien5,
  6. Emilio Martin Mola6,
  7. Marieke Scholte-Voshaar7,
  8. Piet van Riel8,
  9. Laure Gossec2
  1. 1Pierre et Marie Curie University-Paris VI, APHP, Rheumatology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France
  2. 2Paris Descartes University, Medicine Faculty; UPRES-EA 4058; APHP, Rheumatology B Department, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France
  3. 3Department of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna and Hietzing Hospital, Vienna, Austria
  4. 4Department of Internal Medicine/Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  5. 5Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  6. 6Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
  7. 7Department of Rheumatology, VU University Medical Center and Jan van Breemen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  8. 8Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Service de Rhumatologie, 83 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13, France; cecilegaujouxviala{at}yahoo.fr

Abstract

Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)—a first step in a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) initiative to produce recommendations for the management of RA.

Methods A systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library was performed up to January 2009. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy of synthetic DMARDs (vs placebo or other synthetic DMARDs) on signs and symptoms, disability and/or radiographic structural damage in patients with RA were selected. Studies of biological agents or glucocorticoids were excluded. A pooled effect size (ES) was calculated by meta-analysis. Safety and the occurrence of infections and neoplasia was also assessed.

Results 97 RCTs (14 159 patients) were analysed for efficacy. The pooled analysis indicated that methotrexate (MTX) was more efficacious in reducing signs and symptoms, disability and radiographic structural damage than other synthetic DMARDs pooled: ES for swollen joint count (SJC) versus pooled DMARDs=1.42 (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18). Leflunomide appeared to be as effective as MTX. Sulfasalazine and injectable gold were efficacious in reducing signs and symptoms and structural damage. Ciclosporin, minocycline, tacrolimus and hydroxychloroquine showed some efficacy in reducing SJC. Auranofin and D-penicillamine showed no significant superiority over placebo. The risks of cancer and of infection were increased with cyclophosphamide and azathioprine.

Conclusions MTX was well-tolerated and effective in reducing signs and symptoms, disability and structural damage. A comparison with other synthetic DMARDs was in favour of MTX, though at the tested doses MTX and leflunomide were equally effective.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2009.127225

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Despite extensive research, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to have a profound impact on the life of the patients, their families and society. To avoid long-term disability and premature death, therapeutic approaches call for early intervention with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), either as monotherapy or combination therapy. In 2009, a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force aimed at aggregating available information on disease modification in RA into practical recommendations.1 To this end, several systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were necessary for the provision of current states of evidence. The objectives of this report were to analyse the literature on the efficacy on signs and symptoms, disability and structure, of all synthetic DMARDs available in RA, in published randomised controlled trials and to assess the safety, with a special focus on cancers and infections. For efficacy, the focus was on mono- and combination therapy but disregarding addition of biological agents or glucocorticoids; the latter will be discussed elsewhere.2 ,3

    Methods

    Methods are described briefly here; more details are given in the online supplementary material.

    Study selection

    Efficacy

    A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed Medline, Embase and Cochrane library databases up to January 2009 without limitation of years of publication or journal, using the followings keywords for articles in English: (arthritis, rheumatoid [MESH] OR rheumatoid arthritis [tiab]) AND (‘name of drug’ [substance name] OR ‘name of drug’ [tiab]) AND (clinical trial OR randomised controlled trial). Research questions defined in the subgroup were: (a) the relative efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) versus other synthetic DMARDs; (b) the efficacy of other synthetic DMARDs versus placebo; (c) the efficacy of synthetic DMARDs in monotherapy versus in combination. It should be noted that when a drug A or placebo was added to the treatment of patients who were inadequate responders to drug B, the trial was analysed as a comparison of drug A versus placebo, even if drug B was continued.

    Safety

    To examine safety, a systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed Medline database up to March 2009 without limitation of year of publication or journal, using the followings keywords for articles in English: (drug name) AND arthritis, rheumatoid [MESH] AND (tolerability OR toxicity OR infection OR malignancy) NOT (controlled trial OR randomised controlled trial).

    Data Collection

    Efficacy was assessed by the change in signs and symptoms or disability status between baseline and week 24 or closest time point, and by the change in radiographic joint damage between baseline and week 48 or closest time point in both groups.

    Statistical analysis

    In each trial the effect size (ES) or the standardised response mean (SRM) was determined to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. Detailed explanations are presented in the online material. A pooled ES and pooled SRM were calculated by meta-analysis, using the inverse variance method. RevMan version 5.0 (Review Manager, Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008) statistical software was used. Statistical heterogeneity was tested by the Q test and I2 test. All meta-analyses were carried out with a random-effects model in case of significant heterogeneity.

    Results

    Literature search results and trials characteristics

    Efficacy

    Initially, 759 potentially relevant articles were screened. Finally, 97 randomised trials were included (selection process shown in online supplementary figure A), comprising a total of 14 159 patients (72.9% women). Their mean age was 51.9±4.6 years and mean disease duration 5.2±3.9 years. Patients' characteristics according to the drug used are detailed in table 1; 57 (59%) trials reported clear intention-to-treat analyses.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Number of RCTs reporting the efficacy of each synthetic DMARD and characteristics of patients with RA

    Long-term safety

    Initially, 821 potentially relevant articles were screened. Finally, 39 articles were included (selection process shown in online supplementary figure B).

    Efficacy of MTX versus monotherapy with other synthetic DMARDs

    MTX versus pooled monotherapy with other synthetic DMARDs

    Seventeen trials reported comparisons of MTX monotherapy and monotherapy with other synthetic DMARDs. The meta-analysis showed MTX to be better than the other DMARDs pooled: the pooled SRM for swollen joint count (SJC) versus all other synthetic DMARDs, whatever the dose, was in favour of MTX: 1.42 (95% CI 0.65 to 2.18) (figure 1). It should be noticed that MTX was used at relatively lower doses than the optimal doses currently recommended.4

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    The efficacy on swollen joint count of methotrexate (MTX) versus others synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

    MTX versus leflunomide

    The results were not significantly different for leflunomide and MTX (at the tested doses) on SJC (four studies, 1889 patients, SRM=0.09 (95% CI −0.12 to 0.30)),5,–,8 pain (four studies, 1475 patients, SRM=−0.04 (−0.33 to 0.26)),5,–,8 disability (four studies, 1465 patients, SRM=−0.09 (−0.30 to 0.11)),5,–,7 ,9 ACR20 response criteria (four studies, 1889 patients, OR=1.04 (0.60 to 1.79))5,–,8 and structure (two studies, 895 patients, SRM= 0.03 (−0.10 to 0.16)).6 ,8 The mean dose of MTX, reported in three studies, was 12.5 mg/week. MTX could be increased to ≥15 mg/week in all studies, but was not as high as currently recommended.4

    MTX versus sulfasalazine

    The results were not significantly different for sulfasalazine versus MTX (at the tested doses) on SJC (two studies, 206 patients, SRM=0.59 (95% CI −1.96 to 3.15)),10 ,11 disability (two studies, 208 patients, SRM=0.62 (−0.86 to 2.10))10 ,11 and on ACR50 response criteria (two studies, 193 patients, OR=1.57 (0.82 to 3.00)).12 ,13 Mean dose of MTX, reported in four studies, was 14.2 mg/week and mean dose of sulfasalazine was 2.6 g/day. MTX could be increased to ≥15 mg/week and sulfasalazine could be increased to ≥3 g/day in all studies.

    MTX versus intramuscular gold

    MTX was not significantly different from intramuscular gold on SJC (one study, 174 patients, ES=−0.03 (−0.33 to 0.27)),14 disability (one study, 138 patients, ES=0.00 (−0.33 to 0.33))15 but was less efficacious on structural changes in one study than intramuscular gold (174 patients, ES=−1.15 (−1.47 to −0.83))14 though MTX patients had higher radiographic scores and more eroded joints at baseline.

    MTX versus auranofin

    MTX was more efficacious than auranofin on SJC (one study, 197 patients, SRM=6.02 (95% CI 5.35 to 6.68)) and on structure (one study, 167 patients, SRM=0.63 (0.32 to 0.94)).16 However, in another study with 144 patients, difference for SJC was not statistically significant: ES=0.0 (−0.33 to 0.33) but MTX dose in that study was only 7.5 mg/week.17

    MTX versus ciclosporin

    MTX appeared more efficacious than ciclosporin on SJC in one study (103 patients): but the difference did not reach statistical significance: ES=0.35 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.74)18; for ACR50 response criteria the difference was significant in one study (84 patients): OR=2.97 (1.22 to 7.28).13

    MTX versus tetracyclines

    There was no difference in the effect on SJC between doxycycline and MTX in one study but the dose of MTX was only 7.5 mg/week.19 There were no interpretable data comparing minocycline and MTX.

    MTX versus azathioprine

    MTX was more efficacious than azathioprine on SJC (two studies, 204 patients, SRM=2.74 (95% CI 2.32 to 3.17))20 ,21 and on structure (one study, 63 patients, SRM=3.62 (2.80 to 4.43)).20

    Efficacy of monotherapy with other synthetic DMARDs versus placebo

    The research question was the efficacy of synthetic DMARDs versus placebo. Leflunomide, sulfasalazine, intramuscular gold, hydroxychloroquine, ciclosporin, minocycline, azathioprine and tacrolimus were all shown to be efficacious (details are given in online supplementary file 3). A Cochrane review indicated that cyclophosphamide was efficacious on SJC and structure.22

    Synthetic DMARD monotherapy versus combination therapy with synthetic DMARDs

    MTX monotherapy versus MTX combination therapy with other synthetic DMARDs

    For this question, we used data from a previously published SLR,23 in which a meta-analysis of 19 trials (2025 patients) comparing MTX in combination versus MTX monotherapy had been performed.

    DMARD naive patients

    In DMARD naive patients, the trials showed no significant advantage of the combination treatments with MTX versus MTX monotherapy for pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire, ACR20, 50, 70 response criteria, and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (relative risk, RR=1.16 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.93)).

    DMARD inadequate responders

    In DMARD inadequate responders, results were less conclusive. In MTX inadequate responders (three trials), MTX combination was more efficacious than continued MTX monotherapy on SJC (three studies, SRM= −0.78 (95% CI −1.30 to −0.25)), pain (three studies, SRM=−0.64 (−1.01 to −0.28)), Health Assessment Questionnaire (three studies, SRM= −1.21 (−2.07 to −0.36)) and ACR response (two studies, RR ACR20=0.26 (0.16, 0.40)) (figure 2). However, these results may be balanced by toxicity aspects, as indicated by a previously published meta-analysis23: eight trials performed in DMARD inadequate responder patient populations did not show significant differences in the number of withdrawals between MTX combination and MTX monotherapy. One exception was O’Dell's study of 102 DMARD inadequate responders, in which the combination of MTX with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine showed a smaller number of withdrawals than MTX alone with a RR of 0.30 (0.14 to 0.65).24

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    The efficacy on ACR20 response criteria of methotrexate (MTX) in combination versus MTX in monotherapy. DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

    Sulfasalazine monotherapy versus sulfasalazine combination

    In six trials (657 patients), there was no difference for SJC, function, ACR20, 50 and 70 response criteria. The only significant result was for structural damage in one trial favouring the combination MTX+sulfasalazine+hydroxychloroquine: SRM=−1.70 (95% CI −2.03 to −1.37)25 and for pain in one trial favouring sulfasalazine monotherapy: SRM=4.10 (2.91 to 5.29)10 (online supplementary file table K). Other combinations are detailedin the online supplementary material.

    Long-term safety of synthetic DMARDs

    Infections

    Smitten et al presented a retrospective study from 1999 to 2006 including 24 530 patients with RA and 500 000 controls, in which patients with RA were observed to have an increased risk of being hospitalised for an infection.26 In a nested case–control analysis performed within the RA cohort, oral corticosteroid use was associated with a dose-related increase, and biological treatments were associated with only a slightly increased risk. Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and MTX had a decreased risk of hospitalisations for infections, whereas for sulfasalazine, leflunomide and other traditional DMARDs there was no association.

    A case–control design nested within a cohort of 23 733 patients with RA studied between 1980 and 2003 was reported by Bernatsky et al.27 The risk for all infections requiring hospitalisation appeared to be most increased with current exposures to cyclophosphamide: RR=3.26, 95% CI 2.28 to 4.67 and systemic glucocorticoid agents: RR=2.56, 95% CI 2.29 to 2.85. Azathioprine was associated with a moderately increased risk: RR=1.52, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.97. There was a suggestion of increased risk of pneumonia due to MTX: RR=1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33.

    Lacaille et al performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of a population-based RA cohort followed up from 1996 to 2003.28 A total of 27 710 patients with RA provided 162 710 person-years of follow-up. Use of DMARDs without corticosteroids was associated with a small decrease in mild infection risk: adjusted rate ratio=0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93 relative to no corticosteroid or DMARD use. Use of DMARDs without corticosteroids was not associated with increased serious infection risk: adjusted rate ratio=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.0. Use of corticosteroids increased the risk of mild and serious infections.

    Salliot and van der Heijde have performed a SLR of the long-term safety of MTX in RA.29 They concluded that long-term use of MTX treatment does not appear as a risk factor for infections in general, or for serious infections including herpes zoster.

    Cancers

    A role for azathioprine in the development of lymphomas30 ,31 and a role for cyclophosphamide32,–,34 in cancers, particularly bladder cancer, have been suggested. However, no studies have shown that MTX increases the risk of cancer in patients with RA.29 Studies that showed an increased risk of cancer associated with gold or ciclosporin treatment in patients with RA were inconclusive as they used cancer incidence in the general population as the reference.35 ,36 Two studies measured the RR of cancer in a group of ciclosporin-treated patients with RA (46 months and 1.6 years on average) using patients with RA as a control and indicated no enhanced risk.37 ,38

    Discussion

    This meta-analysis of synthetic DMARDs in monotherapy or in combination with other synthetic DMARDs indicated that MTX monotherapy is more efficacious in RA on signs and symptoms, disability and structural damage than other non-biological DMARDs. Results were comparable for MTX and leflunomide at the MTX doses assessed. There was also no clear evidence for better efficacy of MTX (at tested doses) versus sulfasalazine or intramuscular gold. It should be noted that MTX was used at relatively lower doses than the optimal doses currently recommended in a recent meta-analysis—namely, starting treatment with MTX 15 mg/week orally, escalating by 5 mg/month to 25–30 mg/week or the highest tolerable dose.4 Ciclosporin, minocycline, tacrolimus and hydroxychloroquine have shown some efficacy on SJCs versus placebo; hydroxychloroquine and minocycline had only marginal effects and auranofin and D-penicillamine showed no significant advantage versus placebo. Few data were available for azathioprine and cyclophosphamide and no data for chlorambucil and mycophenolate. In DMARD naïve patients, a meta-analysis found no significant advantage of the combination of MTX with other non-biological DMARDs over MTX monotherapy, whereas the results were inconclusive in DMARD inadequate responders when taking into account the balance between efficacy and toxicity.23 A combination of MTX with sulfasalazine, ciclosporin or azathioprine showed some beneficial effect versus the same drug given in de novo monotherapy (sulfasalazine, ciclosporin or azathioprine). Data on safety indicated that the risk of infections was increased with cyclophosphamide and azathioprine. Cyclophosphamide and, potentially, azathioprine increased the risk of malignancies in patients with RA.

    This systematic literature research with meta-analysis is quite substantial: 97 studies were analysed encompassing the effect of 14 DMARDs used as monotherapy but also in combination with other non-biological DMARDs on several outcomes—namely, on signs and symptoms, on disability and on structural damage. However, there are limitations to our analyses; to interpret the results on so many outcomes of so many different drugs, it was necessary to pool the results on efficacy. Some studies could not be included in this meta-analysis because we needed at least one measure of variability such as SD. Some studies used lower doses of MTX than in current practice. Most of the combinations were studied in only one or two trials. Also, outcome measures were inconsistently reported. Studies including high doses of corticosteroids or biological agents were analysed in different subgroups of the task force.2 ,3 However, the current analysis is based on a large number of studies enabling provision of the evidence for the respective management recommendations.1

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Smolen JS,
      2. Landewé R,
      3. Breedveld FC,
      4. et al
      . Eular recommendations 2010 for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:964–75.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Nam JL,
      2. Winthrop K,
      3. van Vollenhoven R,
      4. et al
      . Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:976–86.
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      1. Gorter SL,
      2. Bijlsma H,
      3. Cutolo M,
      4. et al
      . Current evidence for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1010–14.
      OpenUrl
    4. ↵
      1. Visser K,
      2. van der Heijde D
      . Optimal dosage and route of administration of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1094–9.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Bao C,
      2. Chen S,
      3. Gu Y,
      4. et al
      . Leflunomide, a new disease-modifying drug for treating active rheumatoid arthritis in methotrexate-controlled phase II clinical trial. Chin Med J 2003;116:1228–34.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Emery P,
      2. Breedveld FC,
      3. Lemmel EM,
      4. et al
      . A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39:655–65.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Reece RJ,
      2. Kraan MC,
      3. Radjenovic A,
      4. et al
      . Comparative assessment of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, by dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:366–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Strand V,
      2. Cohen S,
      3. Schiff M,
      4. et al
      . Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2542–50.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Strand V,
      2. Tugwell P,
      3. Bombardier C,
      4. et al
      . Function and health-related quality of life: results from a randomized controlled trial of leflunomide versus methotrexate or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1870–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Dougados M,
      2. Combe B,
      3. Cantagrel A,
      4. et al
      . Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components. Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58:220–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Haagsma CJ,
      2. van Riel PL,
      3. de Jong AJ,
      4. et al
      . Combination of sulphasalazine and methotrexate versus the single components in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind, 52 week clinical trial. Br J Rheumatol 1997;36:1082–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Capell HA,
      2. Madhok R,
      3. Porter DR,
      4. et al
      . Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:235–41.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Ferraccioli GF,
      2. Gremese E,
      3. Tomietto P,
      4. et al
      . Analysis of improvements, full responses, remission and toxicity in rheumatoid patients treated with step-up combination therapy (methotrexate, cyclosporin A, sulphasalazine) or monotherapy for three years. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:892–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Rau R,
      2. Herborn G,
      3. Menninger H,
      4. et al
      . Progression in early erosive rheumatoid arthritis: 12 month results from a randomized controlled trial comparing methotrexate and gold sodium thiomalate. Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:1220–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Hamilton J,
      2. McInnes IB,
      3. Thomson EA,
      4. et al
      . Comparative study of intramuscular gold and methotrexate in a rheumatoid arthritis population from a socially deprived area. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:566–72.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Weinblatt ME,
      2. Kaplan H,
      3. Germain BF,
      4. et al
      . Low-dose methotrexate compared with auranofin in adult rheumatoid arthritis. A thirty-six-week, double-blind trial. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:330–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Williams HJ,
      2. Ward JR,
      3. Reading JC,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of auranofin, methotrexate, and the combination of both in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:259–69.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Drosos AA,
      2. Voulgari PV,
      3. Papadopoulos IA,
      4. et al
      . Cyclosporine A in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective, randomized 24-month study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1998;16:695–701.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Sreekanth VR,
      2. Handa R,
      3. Wali JP,
      4. et al
      . Doxycycline in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis–a pilot study. J Assoc Physicians India 2000;48:804–7.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Jeurissen ME,
      2. Boerbooms AM,
      3. van de Putte LB,
      4. et al
      . Methotrexate versus azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A forty-eight-week randomized, double-blind trial. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34:961–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Willkens RF,
      2. Urowitz MB,
      3. Stablein DM,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of azathioprine, methotrexate, and the combination of both in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:849–56.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Suarez-Almazor ME,
      2. Spooner C,
      3. Belseck E
      . Azathioprine for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;4:CD001461.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Katchamart W,
      2. Trudeau J,
      3. Phumethum V,
      4. et al
      . Efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy versus MTX combination therapy with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1105–12.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. O'Dell JR,
      2. Haire CE,
      3. Erikson N,
      4. et al
      . Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of all three medications. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1287–91.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Möttönen T,
      2. Hannonen P,
      3. Leirisalo-Repo M,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial. FIN-RACo trial group. Lancet 1999;353:1568–73.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Smitten AL,
      2. Choi HK,
      3. Hochberg MC,
      4. et al
      . The risk of hospitalized infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2008;35:387–93.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Bernatsky S,
      2. Hudson M,
      3. Suissa S
      . Anti-rheumatic drug use and risk of serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:1157–60.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Lacaille D,
      2. Guh DP,
      3. Abrahamowicz M,
      4. et al
      . Use of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and risk of infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:1074–81.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Salliot C,
      2. van der Heijde D
      . Long-term safety of methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1100–4.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Pitt PI,
      2. Sultan AH,
      3. Malone M,
      4. et al
      . Association between azathioprine therapy and lymphoma in rheumatoid disease. J R Soc Med 1987;80:428–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Bottomley WW,
      2. Ford G,
      3. Cunliffe WJ,
      4. et al
      . Aggressive squamous cell carcinomas developing in patients receiving long-term azathioprine. Br J Dermatol 1995;133:460–2.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Baltus JA,
      2. Boersma JW,
      3. Hartman AP,
      4. et al
      . The occurrence of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with cyclophosphamide: a controlled retrospective follow-up. Ann Rheum Dis 1983;42:368–73.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Baker GL,
      2. Kahl LE,
      3. Zee BC,
      4. et al
      . Malignancy following treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with cyclophosphamide. Long-term case-control follow-up study. Am J Med 1987;83:1–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Radis CD,
      2. Kahl LE,
      3. Baker GL,
      4. et al
      . Effects of cyclophosphamide on the development of malignancy and on long-term survival of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A 20-year followup study. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:1120–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      1. Bendix G,
      2. Bjelle A,
      3. Holmberg E
      . Cancer morbidity in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Proresid or parenteral gold. Scand J Rheumatol 1995;24:79–84.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Beauparlant P,
      2. Papp K,
      3. Haraoui B
      . The incidence of cancer associated with the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1999;29:148–58.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Arellano F,
      2. Krupp P
      . Malignancies in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with cyclosporin A. Br J Rheumatol 1993;32(Suppl 1):72–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. van den Borne BE,
      2. Landewé RB,
      3. Houkes I,
      4. et al
      . No increased risk of malignancies and mortality in cyclosporin A-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:1930–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract

    Supplementary materials

    • Web Only Data ard.2009.127225

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None. Francis Berenbaum was the handling editor.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.