Claire E. Haire

Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Methotrexate Alone, Sulfasalazine and Hydroxychloroquine, or a Combination of All Three Medications

BACKGROUND Rheumatoid arthritis is a common disease that causes substantial morbidity and mortality. The responses of patients with rheumatoid arthritis to treatment with a single so-called disease-modifying drug, such as methotrexate, are often suboptimal. Despite limited data, many patients are treated with combinations of these drugs. METHODS We enrolled 102 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and poor responses to at least one disease-modifying drug in a two-year, double-blind, randomized study of treatment with methotrexate alone (7.5 to 17.5 mg per week), the combination of sulfasalazine (500 mg twice daily) and hydroxychloroquine (200 mg twice daily), or all three drugs. The dose of methotrexate was adjusted in an attempt to achieve remission in all patients. The primary and point of the study was the successful completion of two years of treatment with 50 percent improvement in composite symptoms of arthritis and no evidence of drug toxicity. RESULTS Fifty of the 102 patients had 50 percent improvement at nine months and maintained at least that degree of improvement for two years without evidence of major drug toxicity. Among them were 24 of 31 patients treated with all three drugs (77 percent), 12 of 36 patients treated with methotrexate alone (33 percent, P < 0.001 for the comparison with the three-drug group), and 14 of 35 patients treated with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine (40 percent), P = 0.003 for the comparison with the three-drug group). Seven patients in the methotrexate group and three patients in each of the other two groups discontinued treatment because of drug toxicity. CONCLUSIONS In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, combination therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine is more effective than either methotrexate alone or a combination of sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine.

Treatment of early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis: A two-year, double-blind comparison of minocycline and hydroxychloroquine

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of minocycline with that of a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), hydroxychloroquine, in patients with early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS Sixty patients with seropositive RA of <1 years duration who had not been previously treated with DMARDs were randomized to receive minocycline, 100 mg twice per day, or hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice per day, in a 2-year, double-blind protocol. All patients also received low-dose prednisone. The primary end points of the study were 1) the percentage of patients with an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (ACR50) response at 2 years, and 2) the dosage of prednisone at 2 years. RESULTS Minocycline-treated patients were more likely to achieve an ACR50 response at 2 years compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (60% compared with 33%, respectively; P = 0.04). Minocycline-treated patients were also receiving less prednisone at 2 years compared with the hydroxychloroquine group (mean 0.81 mg/day compared with 3.21 mg/day, respectively; P < 0.01). In addition, patients treated with minocycline were more likely to have been completely tapered off prednisone (P = 0.03). Trends favoring the minocycline treatment group were seen when outcomes were assessed according to components of the ACR core criteria set, with the differences reaching statistical significance for patients global assessment of disease activity (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION Minocycline is an effective DMARD in patients with early seropositive RA. Patients treated with minocycline were more likely to achieve an ACR50 response and did so while receiving less prednisone. In addition, minocycline-treated patients were more likely to have discontinued treatment with prednisone at 2 years.

Treatment of early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis with minocycline: Four‐year followup of a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial

OBJECTIVE Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes substantial morbidity and mortality, and current treatments are suboptimal. Recent studies have demonstrated the short-term efficacy of minocycline in the treatment of patients with early RA. This study was undertaken to compare patients treated with conventional therapy in the early phase of their RA and those treated with minocycline, after 4 years of followup. METHODS Forty-six patients with seropositive RA of <1 years duration had been enrolled in a double-blind study of minocycline (100 mg twice daily) versus placebo. After the blinded portion of the study (3-6 months, depending upon response), all patients were treated with conventional therapy. This report compares those patients randomized to receive placebo for 3 months and then conventional therapy for the duration of 4 years versus those originally randomized to receive minocycline. RESULTS Twenty of the 23 original minocycline-treated patients and 18 of the 23 original placebo-treated patients were available for followup (mean 4 years). At followup, RA was in remission (American College of Rheumatology criteria) without disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or steroid therapy in 8 of the patients originally treated with minocycline compared with 1 patient in the placebo group (P = 0.02). Ten patients in the minocycline group versus 16 in the original placebo group currently require DMARD therapy (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION Among patients with seropositive RA, remissions are more frequent and the need for DMARD therapy is less in those treated early in the disease course with minocycline compared with those treated with conventional therapy delayed by an average of only 3 months. Minocycline appears to be an effective therapy for early RA; further investigation into its mechanism of action is needed.

HLA-DRB1 typing in rheumatoid arthritis: predicting response to specific treatments

OBJECTIVE To determine the predictive value of shared epitope alleles for response to treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS Patients from our previously published triple DMARD study were tested for the presence of shared epitope alleles (DRB1 *0401,0404/0408, 0405,0101, 1001,and 1402). Patients who were shared epitope positive were then compared with those who were negative to see if there was a differential effect on therapeutic response. RESULTS Shared epitope positive patients were much more likely to achieve a 50% response if treated with methotrexate-sulphasalazine-hydroxychloroquine compared with methotrexate alone (94% responders versus 32%, p<0.0001). In contrast shared epitope negative patients did equally well regardless of treatment (88% responders for methotrexate-sulphasalazine-hydroxychloroquine versus 83% for methotrexate). Additionally, a trend toward an inverse relation of the gene dose was seen for response to methotrexate treatment (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that determining shared epitope status may provide clinical information useful in selecting among treatment options.

Pneumococcal vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis.

To determine the ability of patients with rheumatoid arthritis to respond to pneumococcal vaccination and whether age or methotrexate affects this response, we studied 40 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received pneumococcal vaccination. Patients were equally divided into four groups according to age and whether or not they were taking methotrexate. Pneumococcal antibody levels were drawn prevaccination and 6 weeks post-vaccination.Eighty percent of rheumatoid arthritis patients vaccinated achieved protective levels of antibodies. The age of the patient did not affect this response, but methotrexate-treated patients responded less well than those not taking methotrexate (p = 0.03).In general, patients with rheumatoid arthritis respond well to the pneumococcal vaccine. Pneumococcal vaccination of rheumatoid arthritis patients before initiating methotrexate therapy is strongly recommended.