Rheumatoid Arthritis: Belseck E

Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner C, Belseck E. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, USA, 77024. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11034720 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the short-term effects of azathioprine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 3, 2000), Medline up to and including August 2000 and Embase from 1988 to August 2000. We also conducted a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing azathioprine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted independently by two reviewers (CS, EB); disagreements were resolved by discussion or third party adjudication (MS). The same reviewers (CS, EB) assessed the methodological quality of the trials using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and functional status assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and for adverse reactions. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are presented. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 81 patients were included in the analysis. Forty patients were randomized to azathioprine and forty-one to placebo. A pooled estimate was calculated for two outcomes. A statistically significant benefit was observed for azathioprine when compared to placebo for tender joint scores. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.98 (95% CI -1.45, -0.50). Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the azathioprine group OR=4.56 (95% CI 1.16, 17.85). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine appears to have a statistically significant benefit on the disease activity in joints of patients with RA. This evidence however is based on a small number of patients, included in older trials. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression were not assessed due to lack of data. Toxicity is shown to be higher and more serious than that observed with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Given this high risk to benefit ratio, there is no evidence to recommend the use of azathioprine over other DMARDs.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner C, Belseck E. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, USA, 77024. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11034719 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term effects of D-penicillamine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 3, 2000) and Medline up to and including August 2000 and Embase from 1988-2000. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed independently by two reviewers (CS, EB) and checked by a third (MS) using a validated quality assessment tool (Jadad 1996). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint and stratified according to D-penicillamine dosages: low (<500mg/day), moderate (500 to <1000mg/day) and high (1000 mg/day or greater). Data was abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second (CS, MS). The pooled analysis was performed using the standardized mean difference for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference was used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were identified, with 425 patients randomized to D-penacillamine and 258 to placebo. A statistically significant benefit was observed for D-penicillamine when compared to placebo for all three-dose ranges and for most outcome measures including: tender joint counts, pain, physician's global assessments and ESR. The standardized weighted mean differences between treatment and placebo in moderate doses were -0.51 [95% CI -0.88, -0.14] for tender joint counts, -0.56 (95% CI -0.87, -0.26) for pain and -0.97 (95% CI -1.25, -0.70) for global assessment. The difference for ESR was -10.6 mm/hr. Similar results were observed for the higher dose group. Total withdrawals were significantly higher in the moderate and high dosage D-penicillamine groups (OR=1.63 and 2.13 respectively), mostly due to increased adverse reactions (OR = 2.60 and 4.95 respectively), including renal and hematological abnormalities. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: D-penicillamine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy appears to be similar to that of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but with a significantly higher toxicity. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression are not clear from this review.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, USA, 77024. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11034702 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the short-term effects of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 3, 2000), Medline and Embase up to and including August 2000. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing oral cyclophosphamide against placebo (or an active drug at a dosage considered to be ineffective) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using a validated checklist (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for baseline and end-of-study. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the pooled analysis of two trials, 31 receiving cyclophosphamide. A statistically significant benefit was observed for cyclophosphamide when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores: SMDs were -0.57 and -0.59 respectively. The difference in ESR also favoured the active drug but did not reach statistical significance (-12 mm, 95%CI: -26 to 2.5). One trial reported the number of patients developing new or worse erosions: the OR for cyclophosphamide compared to placebo was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.57). Patients receiving placebo were six times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving cyclophosphamide. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were higher in the cyclophosphamide group (Odds ratio=2.9), although this difference was not statistically significant. Side effects from cyclophosphamide included hemorrhagic cystitis, nausea, vomiting, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, alopecia, amenorrhea and herpes zoster infections. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclophosphamide appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA, similar to some disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as antimalarials or sulfasalazine, but lower than methotrexate. Toxicity however is severe, limiting its use given the low benefit-risk ratio compared to other antirheumatic agents.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea B, Homik J, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11034691 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the short-term efficacy and toxicity of antimalarials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including August 2000. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing antimalarials against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using a validated checklist (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and global assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials, with 300 patients randomized to hydrochloroquine and 292 to placebo. Only trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine could be pooled in the analysis. A statistically significant benefit was observed when hydroxychloroquine was compared to placebo. The standardized mean differences for the various outcome measures ranged from -0.33 to -0.52, and were statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR. Overall withdrawals and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were significantly more frequent in the placebo group. No differences were observed in withdrawals due to toxicity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine appears to be efficacious for the treatment of RA. Its overall effect appears to be moderate, but its low toxicity profile should be considered when treating patients with RA.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner CH, Belseck E, Shea B. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796461 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Auranofin is an oral gold compound used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis RA. The use of auranofin has declined in the past few years, perhaps due in part to conflicting results from different studies. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of auranofin for the treatment of (RA) SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 1998, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) version 4, 1998, and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Specialized Register. A hand search was also done of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing auranofin against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated assessment tool (Jadad 1996). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. In the presence of heterogeneity, random effects models were used. Otherwise, the data was pooled assuming fixed effects. MAIN RESULTS: A statistically significant benefit was observed for auranofin when compared to placebo for tender joint scores, pain, patient and physician global assessments and ESR. The SMD between treatment and placebo was -0.39 (95% CI -0.54, -0.25) for tender joint scores, -0.08 (95% CI -0.22, -0.07) for swollen joint scores, and the WMD was -4.68 (95% CI -6.59, -2.77) for pain scores and -9.85mm (95% CI -16.46, -3.25) for ESR. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were 1.5 times higher in the auranofin group OR = 1.52 (95% CI 0.94, 2.46) but this result was not statistically significant. Patients receiving placebo were three times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving auranofin: OR=0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.44). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Auranofin appears to have a small clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA. The beneficial effects appear to be modest compared to drugs such as methotrexate or parenteral gold. Its effects on long term health status and radiological progression are not clear at this time.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner C, Belseck E. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796441 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the short-term effects of azathioprine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline up to and including July 1998 and Embase from 1988-1998. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing azathioprine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted independently by two reviewers (CS, EB); disagreements were resolved by discussion or third party adjudication (MS). The same reviewers (CS, EB) assessed the methodological quality of the trials using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and functional status assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and for adverse reactions. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are presented. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 81 patients were included in the analysis. Forty patients were randomized to azathioprine and forty-one to placebo. A pooled estimate was calculated for two outcomes. A statistically significant benefit was observed for azathioprine when compared to placebo for tender joint scores. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.98 (95% CI -1.45, -0.50). Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the azathioprine group OR=4.56 (95% CI 1.16, 17.85). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine appears to have a statistically significant benefit on the disease activity in joints of patients with RA. This evidence however is based on a small number of patients, included in older trials. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression were not assessed due to lack of data. Toxicity is shown to be higher and more serious than that observed with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Given this high risk to benefit ratio, there is no evidence to recommend the use of azathioprine over other DMARDs.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner C, Belseck E. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796440 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term effects of D-penicillamine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline up to and including December 1998 and Embase from 1988-1998. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed independently by two reviewers (CS, EB) and checked by a third (MS) using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint and stratified according to D-penicillamine dosages: low (<500mg/day), moderate (500 to <1000mg/day) and high (1000 mg/day or greater). Data was abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second (CS, MS). The pooled analysis was performed using the standardized mean difference for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference was used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were identified, with 425 patients randomized to D-penacillamine and 258 to placebo. A statistically significant benefit was observed for D-penicillamine when compared to placebo for all three-dose ranges and for most outcome measures including: tender joint counts, pain, physician's global assessments and ESR. The standardized weighted mean differences between treatment and placebo in moderate doses were -0. 51 [95% CI -0.88, -0.14] for tender joint counts, -0.56 (95% CI -0. 87, -0.26) for pain and -0.97 (95% CI -1.25, -0.70) for global assessment. The difference for ESR was -10.6 mm/hr. Similar results were observed for the higher dose group. Total withdrawals were significantly higher in the moderate and high dosage D-penicillamine groups (OR=1.63 and 2.13 respectively), mostly due to increased adverse reactions (OR = 2.60 and 4.95 respectively), including renal and hematological abnormalities. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: D-penicillamine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy appears to be similar to that of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but with a significantly higher toxicity. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression are not clear from this review.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796419 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term effects of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including July 1997. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing oral cyclophosphamide against placebo (or an active drug at a dosage considered to be ineffective) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using Jadad's scale (Jadad 1995) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for baseline and end-of-study. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the pooled analysis of two trials, 31 receiving cyclophosphamide. A statistically significant benefit was observed for cyclophosphamide when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores: SMDs were -0.57 and -0.59 respectively. The difference in ESR also favoured the active drug but did not reach statistical significance (-12 mm, 95%CI: -26 to 2.5). One trial reported the number of patients developing new or worse erosions: the OR for cyclophosphamide compared to placebo was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.57). Patients receiving placebo were six times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving cyclophosphamide. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were higher in the cyclophosphamide group (Odds ratio=2.9), although this difference was not statistically significant. Side effects from cyclophosphamide included hemorrhagic cystitis, nausea, vomiting, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, alopecia, amenorrhea and herpes zoster infections. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclophosphamide appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA, similar to some disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as antimalarials or sulfasalazine, but lower than methotrexate. Toxicity however is severe, limiting its use given the low benefit-risk ratio compared to other antirheumatic agents.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea B, Homik J, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024 USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796401 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of antimalarials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including July 1997. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing antimalarials against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using Jadad's scale (Jadad 1995) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and global assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials, with 300 patients randomized to hydrochloroquine and 292 to placebo. Only trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine could be pooled in the analysis. A statistically significant benefit was observed when hydroxychloroquine was compared to placebo. The standardized mean differences for the various outcome measures ranged from -0.33 to -0. 52, and were statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR. Overall withdrawals and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were significantly more frequent in the placebo group. No differences were observed in withdrawals due to toxicity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine appears to be efficacious for the treatment of RA. Its overall effect appears to be moderate, but its low toxicity profile should be considered when treating patients with RA.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796400 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of sulfasalazine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing sulfasalazine against placebo in patients with RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (EB, MSA), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs independently. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios (OR) for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials, including 468 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for sulfasalazine when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores, pain and ESR. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.49 for tender and swollen joint scores, and -0.42 for pain. The difference for ESR was -17.6mm. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the sulfasalazine group (OR=3.0). Patients receiving placebo were four times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving sulfasalazine. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Sulfasalazine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA. Its effects on overall health status and radiological progression are not clear at this time, but would appear to be modest.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796399 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing MTX against placebo in patients with RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (EB, MSA), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the trials independently. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios (OR) for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials and 300 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for MTX when compared to placebo. Statistically significant differences were observed for all measures except ESR. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between MTX and placebo for the various outcome measures varied between -0.43 and -1.5. No differences were observed in the total number of withdrawals and dropouts (OR = 0.95), although patients on MTX were three times more likely to discontinue treatment because of adverse reactions (OR=3.47) and four times less likely to withdraw due to lack of response (OR=0.22). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-two percent of people on MTX withdrew due to adverse effects compared to seven percent of the placebo group. MTX has a substantial clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with RA.

Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. · Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. · Control Clin Trials. · Pubmed #11018564 No free full text.

Abstract: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of MEDLINE and EMBASE for the identification of articles regarding controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published in English and related to selected topics: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoporosis (OP), and low back pain (LBP). MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for literature published in 1988 and 1994. The initial selection of papers was then reviewed to confirm that the articles were about CCTs and to assess the quality of the studies. Selected journals were also hand searched to identify CCTs not retrieved by either database. Overall, 4111 different references were retrieved (2253 for RA, 978 for OP, and 880 for LBP); 3418 (83%) of the papers were in English. EMBASE retrieved 78% more references than MEDLINE (2895 versus 1625). Overall, 1217 (30%) of the papers were retrieved by both databases. Two hundred forty-three papers were about CCTs. Two-thirds of these were retrieved by both databases, and one-third by only one. An additional 16 CCTs not retrieved by either database were identified through hand searching. Taking these into account, EMBASE retrieved 16% more CCTs than MEDLINE (220 versus 188); the EMBASE search identified 85% of the CCTs compared to 73% by MEDLINE. No significant differences were observed in the mean quality scores and sample size of the CCTs missed by MEDLINE compared to those missed by EMBASE. Our findings suggest that the use of MEDLINE alone to identify CCTs is inadequate. The use of two or more databases and hand searching of selected journals are needed to perform a comprehensive search.