Rheumatoid Arthritis: Shea B

Brosseau L, Robinson V, Wells G, Debie R, Gam A, Harman K, Morin M, Shea B, Tugwell P. · University of Ottawa, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H-8M5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #16235295 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for RA about ten years ago. LLLT is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. The effectiveness of LLLT for rheumatoid arthritis is still controversial. This review is an update of the original review published in October 1998. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We initially searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (from 1998), the registries of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group and the field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 2001. This search has now been updated to include articles published up to June 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, then extracted data and assessed quality using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested using chi-squared. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with relative risks. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were included in the five placebo-controlled trials, with 130 randomized to laser therapy. Relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 1.10 points (95% CI: 1.82, 0.39) on visual analogue scale relative to placebo, reduced morning stiffness duration by 27.5 minutes (95%CI: 2.9 to 52 minutes) and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI: 0.8 to 1.7). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion and local swelling did not differ between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application or treatment length. For RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference observed between the control and treatment hand for morning stiffness duration, and also no significant improvement in pain relief RR 13.00 (95% CI: 0.79 to 214.06). However, only one study was included as using the contralateral limb as control. . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LLLT could be considered for short-term treatment for relief of pain and morning stiffness for RA patients, particularly since it has few side-effects. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for RA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Wells G, Anderson J, Boers M, Felson D, Heiberg T, Hewlett S, Johnson K, Kirwan J, Lassere M, Robinson V, Shea B, Simon L, Strand V, van Riel P, Tugwell P. · Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12734920 No free full text.

Abstract: The OMERACT 6 Minimal Clinically Important Difference/Low Disease Activity Workshop was organized with the aim of meeting the many challenges that exist in determining a low disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This article presents an overview of that workshop, including results of the voting, a summary of associated discussions, recommendations, and a proposed research agenda.

Wells G, Boers M, Shea B, Anderson J, Felson D, Johnson K, Kirwan J, Lassere M, Robinson V, Simon L, Strand V, van Riel P, Tugwell P. · Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12734918 No free full text.

Abstract: The MCID (minimal clinically important difference) module of OMERACT 5 developed a research agenda that led to the conclusion that a state of low disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would need to be defined. To develop such a definition the various concepts and terminologies, the process for developing an operational definition, and the availability and design of longitudinal datasets for validation needed to be considered. This article describes the process of the MCID/Low Disease Activity State Workshop at OMERACT 6 to develop such a definition.

Kirwan J, Heiberg T, Hewlett S, Hughes R, Kvien T, Ahlmèn M, Boers M, Minnock P, Saag K, Shea B, Suarez Almazor M, Taal E. · University of Bristol Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12672218 No free full text.

Abstract: The objective of the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6 was to address the question of assessing the outcomes of intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the perspective of those who experience the disease themselves. This was done by reviewing the current state of research in the area, identifying the requirements for the development of valid instruments, delineating a research agenda that can attain these requirements, and motivating participants to undertake the appropriate research. Through a series of meetings and discussion sessions a research agenda emerged that includes: exploring subjective experiences of RA identified by patients as important but not encompassed within the current "core set" of outcome measures (such as a sense of well being, fatigue, and disturbed sleep); clarifying terminology; and empowering patients to be more effective partners in outcomes research. These were supported by the OMERACT plenary session. Specific actions were required by both patient participants and organizers to ensure the nature of the conference, its focus and method of working were understood, and that the patient participants were sufficiently confident to make their contribution.

Osiri M, Shea B, Robinson V, Suarez-Almazor M, Strand V, Tugwell P, Wells G. · Medicine, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Rama IV Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, Thailand, 10330. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12535423 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disease. Leflunomide, as an inhibitor of pyrimidine synthesis, has a different mechanism of action than other existing disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of leflunomide compared to placebo or other DMARDs in the treatment of RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for trials up to December 2001. We also hand-searched reference lists and consulted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two independent reviewers selected the trials that met predetermined inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality using standardized forms. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included in this review. Using the ACR20 improvement criteria, there was an absolute difference in improvement of 28% (95% confidence interval: 21 - 35%) favouring leflunomide (232 out of 413 leflunomide treated patients compared to 89 out of 311 placebo patients met the criteria). There was no difference in ACR20 response rate between the patients treated with leflunomide and SSZ or MTX at 6 and 12 months. Other clinical outcomes were improved significantly in the leflunomide group compared to placebo but not different from SSZ or MTX. Withdrawals due to adverse events with leflunomide were 10% greater than placebo (70 out of 416 compared to 18 out of 311 respectively). Important adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms, elevated liver function tests, alopecia, and infections. Overall adverse events and withdrawals in the leflunomide group were not significantly different from SSZ or MTX. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Leflunomide appears to improve all clinical outcomes and delay radiologic progression at both 6 and 12 months of treatment compared to placebo. Its efficacy and adverse events at 2 years of treatment are comparable to SSZ and MTX. Long-term efficacy and toxicity remains to be established.

Garner S, Fidan D, Frankish R, Judd M, Shea B, Towheed T, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Department of Public Health, St. George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12519610 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive. OBJECTIVES: To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.

Casimiro L, Brosseau L, Robinson V, Milne S, Judd M, Well G, Tugwell P, Shea B. · School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8M5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12137714 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is often used, by rehabilitation specialists, as an adjunct therapy for the symptomatic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its mechanical energy has antiinflammatory as well as analgesic properties. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of ultrasound on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search was conducted up to September 2001 with MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group specialized registers were also searched. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved papers and content experts were contacted to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all the extracted data. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point validated assessment tool that measures the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies (n=80 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Ultrasound to the palmar and dorsal aspect of the hand significantly increases grip strength when compared to a control (weighted mean difference (WMD) 28.07, 95CI: 13.37 to 42.77). Ultrasound to the palmar and dorsal aspects of the hand also appears to have beneficial effects to the following outcome measures: wrist dorsal flexion (WMD 1.90, 95%CI: 0.64 to 3.16), duration of morning stiffness (WMD 28.54, 95%CI: 0.18 to 56.90), number of swollen joints (WMD 1.02, 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.59) and the number of painful joints (WMD 1.20, 95%CI: 0.45 to 1.95). There is no significant difference between a)exercises and wax, b)exercises with ultrasound, c)exercises with ultrasound and faradic hand baths for the following outcome measures: pain score, grip strength, circumference of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints, articular index, range of motion or level of activity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The reviewers concluded that ultrasound in combination with the following treatment modalities; exercises, faradic current and wax baths, is not supported and cannot be recommended. Ultrasound alone can however, be used on the hand to increase grip strength, and to a lesser extent, based on the borderline results, increase wrist dorsal flexion, decrease morning stiffness, reduce the number of swollen joints and reduce the number of painful joints. It is important to note that these conclusions are limited by the methodological considerations such as poor quality of the trials, the low number of clinical trials, and the small sample size of the included studies.

Robinson V, Brosseau L, Casimiro L, Judd M, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N-6N5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12076454 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Thermotherapy is often used as adjunct in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by rehabilitation specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different thermotherapy applications on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including September 2001. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Hand searching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of thermotherapy compared to control or active interventions in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search (VR, LB). These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (n=328 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The results of this systematic review of thermotherapy for RA found that there was no significant effect of hot and ice packs applications (Ivey 1994), cryotherapy (Rembe 1970) and faradic baths (Hawkes 1986) on objective measures of disease activity including joint swelling, pain, medication intake, range of motion (ROM), grip strength, hand function compared to a control (no treatment) or active therapy. There is no significant difference between wax and therapeutic ultrasound as well as between wax and faradic bath combined to ultrasound for all the outcomes measured after 1, 2 or 3 week(s) of treatment (Hawkes 1986). There was no difference in patient preference for all types of thermotherapy. No harmful effects of thermotherapy were reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Superficial moist heat and cryotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy. Paraffin wax baths combined with exercises can be recommended for beneficial short term effects for arthritic hands. These conclusions are limited by methodological considerations such as the poor quality of trials.

Robinson V, Brosseau L, Casimiro L, Judd M, Shea B, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N-6N5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11869637 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Thermotherapy is often used as adjunct in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by rehabilitation specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different thermotherapy applications on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including September 2001. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Hand searching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of thermotherapy compared to control or active interventions in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search (VR, LB). These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (n=328 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The results of this systematic review of thermotherapy for RA found that there was no significant effect of hot and ice packs applications (Ivey 1994), cryotherapy (Rembe 1970) and faradic baths (Hawkes 1986) on objective measures of disease activity including joint swelling, pain, medication intake, range of motion (ROM), grip strength, hand function compared to a control (no treatment) or active therapy. There is no significant difference between wax and therapeutic ultrasound as well as between wax and faradic bath combined to ultrasound for all the outcomes measured after 1, 2 or 3 week(s) of treatment (Hawkes 1986). There was no difference in patient preference for all types of thermotherapy. No harmful effects of thermotherapy were reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Superficial moist heat and cryotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy. Paraffin wax baths combined with exercises can be recommended for beneficial short term effects for arthritic hands. These conclusions are limited by methodological considerations such as the poor quality of trials.

Welch V, Brosseau L, Shea B, McGowan J, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Ottawa Hospital - Civic Campus - F6, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y-4E9. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11406046 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Heat and cold therapy are often used as adjuncts in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by rehabilitation specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of heat and cold on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, PEDro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to June 2000. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or controlled clinical trials of ice or heat compared to placebo or active interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and case-control and cohort studies were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies (79 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. There was no effect on objective measures of disease activity (including inflammation, pain and x-ray measured joint destruction) of either ice versus control or heat versus control. Patients reported that they preferred heat therapy to no therapy (94% prefer heat therapy to no therapy). There was no difference in patient preference for heat or ice. No harmful effects of ice or heat were reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Since patients preferred thermotherapy to no therapy, thermotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy which can be applied at home as needed to relieve pain. These results are limited by the poor methodological quality of the trials.

Tugwell P, Welch V, Suarez-Almazor M, Shea B, Wells G. · Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital-General Campus, LM-12, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #11053083 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Welch V, Brosseau L, Shea B, McGowan J, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Ottawa Hospital - Civic Campus - F6, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y-4E9. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #11034770 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Heat and cold therapy are often used as adjuncts in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by rehabilitation specialists. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of heat and cold on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, PEDro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to June 2000. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or controlled clinical trials of ice or heat compared to placebo or active interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and case-control and cohort studies were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies (79 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. There was no effect on objective measures of disease activity (including inflammation, pain and x-ray measured joint destruction) of either ice versus control or heat versus control. Patients reported that they preferred heat therapy to no therapy (94% like heat therapy better than no therapy). There was no difference in patient preference for heat or ice. No harmful effects of ice or heat were reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Since patients enjoy thermotherapy, and there are no harmful effects, thermotherapy should be recommended as a therapy which can be applied at home as needed to relieve pain. There is no need for further research on the effects of heat or cold for 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, 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.

Brosseau L, Welch V, Wells G, deBie R, Gam A, Harman K, Morin M, Shea B, Tugwell P. · School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H-8M5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796462 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for RA about 10 years ago. LLLT is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. The effectiveness of LLLT for rheumatoid arthritis is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the registries of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal group and the field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, we selected only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently select trials for inclusion, then extracted data and assessed quality using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included in the five placebo-controlled trials, with 112 randomized to laser therapy. Relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 70% relative to placebo and reduced morning stiffness duration by 27.5 minutes (95%CI: 2.9 to 52 minutes) and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI: 0. 8 to 1.7 cm). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion and local swelling did not differ between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application or treatment length. For RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference between the control and treatment hand, but all hands improved in terms of pain relief and disease activity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In summary, LLLT for RA is beneficial as a minimum of a four-week treatment with reductions in pain and morning stiffness. On the one hand, this meta-analysis found that pooled data gave some evidence of a clinical effect, but the outcomes were in conflict, and it must therefore be concluded that firm documentation of the application of LLLT in RA is not possible. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints.

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.

Criswell LA, Saag KG, Sems KM, Welch V, Shea B, Wells G, Suarez-Almazor ME. · Division of Rheumatology, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Avenue, C405, Box 0633, San Francisco, CA 94143-0633, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796420 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of low-dose corticosteroid efficacy in the moderate term for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted a search in MEDLINE from 1966 to 1998, using the keywords "corticosteroids" and "rheumatoid arthritis". We also handsearched all issues of Arthritis and Rheumatism and the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology from their dates of first publication to 1994. Furthermore, we examined all Arthritis and Rheumatism abstracts over the 15 year period preceding 1994. References of all identified studies were searched for relevant trials. Authors of unpublished manuscripts were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected by two independent reviewers (LC, KS) using a set of predetermined criteria. Specifically, we required that trials be randomized or cross-over and report at least one of the following outcome measures in a quantitative manner: joint tenderness, joint swelling, grip strength, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We also required that trials be of at least three months duration and use prednisone (or a comparable corticosteroid preparation) at a mean dosage of less than or equal to 15 mg/day. We included studies that used either placebo or active drug controls (i.e., comparative studies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We compared the effectiveness of prednisone to placebo and/or active controls using a fixed effects model for continuous data. A chi square test for homogeneity was performed, and where heterogeneity existed a random effects model was used. We reported results for all available outcomes recommended by the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) group. These included the number of tender and swollen joints, pain, functional status and ESR. Grip strength was also evaluated. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for outcomes assessing the same concept with different scales (eg. swollen joint counts). MAIN RESULTS: Very few studies directly assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroids for RA treatment and many were of poor methodologic quality. Only seven of 34 studies identified by our search met criteria for inclusion. Our results indicated that corticosteroids were significantly more effective than placebo controls for four of six outcomes assessed [standardized mean difference for tender joints = -0.37 (95%CI: -0. 59, -0.14), swollen joints = -0.41 (-0.67, -0.16), pain = -0.43 (-0. 74, -0.12), and functional status = -0.57 (-0.92, -0.22)]. The results for grip strength and ESR were not significant [GS = +0.30 (-0.19, +0.80), weighted mean difference (WMD) for ESR = -7.03 (-18. 06, +4.01)]. The single trial that compared prednisone to aspirin indicated no statistically significant difference between these groups for joint tenderness (0.10 (-0.35, +0.55) and for ESR [0.00 (-11.09, +11.09]. Overall, the four outcomes assessed in the single trial that compared prednisone to chloroquine suggested that the effectiveness of these two agents is similar [SMD for joint tenderness = +0.23 (-0.30, +0.75), swollen joints = +0.43 (-0.11, +0. 96), functional status = -0.27 (-0.80, +0.26), and WMD for ESR = -16. 00 (-30.58, -1.42)]. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited data available, moderate-term prednisone treatment of RA appears to be superior to placebo and comparable to treatment with aspirin or chloroquine in improving several common rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures.

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.

Wells G, Haguenauer D, Shea B, Suarez-Almazor ME, Welch VA, Tugwell P. · Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Room 3227, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8M5. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796412 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term (up to one year) effects of cyclosporine for rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to 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 clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing cyclosporine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the trials to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (DH, GW),and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. Methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs was assessed by two reviewers (BS, DH). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for change from baseline endpoints. Sufficient data were obtained to include in the pooled analysis the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials and 318 patients were included. A statistically significant decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints was observed for cyclosporine when compared to placebo. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for the change in the number of swollen joints was -0.969. Significant improvements in pain and the functional index were also found for cyclosporine. More side effects occurred in the cyclosporine group compared to placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine has an important clinical benefit int the short-term (up to one year) treatment of patients with progressive rheumatoid arthritis.

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.

Ortiz Z, Shea B, Suarez Almazor M, Moher D, Wells G, Tugwell P. · Sucre 3280, 7th Floor, Apt. 26, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1428. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796393 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of folic acid and folinic acid in reducing the mucosal and gastrointestinal (GI) and haematologic side effects of low-dose of Methotrexate (MTX) in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and to determine whether or not folate supplementation alters MTX efficacy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial's Register (CCTR), the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Specialized Register and Medline up to and including June 1999, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). We also handsearched the following: (i) bibliographic references; (ii) current contents of the last 6 months; (iii) abstracts of the rheumatology meetings; and (iv) all issues of four journals; Journal of Rheumatology, Arthritis & Rheumatism, Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, and British Journal of Rheumatology. All languages were included. Principal investigators were also contacted in order to look for unpublished literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials (RCTs), in which adult RA patients were treated with a low dose of MTX (<20 mg / week) concurrently with folate supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two observers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. (BS, Z0) The overall treatment effect across trials was calculated using a fixed effect model. Disease activity was evaluated using standardized mean differences to ensure comparability across outcome measures. Results are presented with 95% Confidence Inervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were conducted evaluating different doses and sensitivity analysis looking at the quality of the trials. Publication bias was assessed with an inverted funnel plot technique. Heterogeneity of the trials was measured using a standard chi square test. Costs per month in different countries were compared. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 12 trials retrieved, 7 met the inclusion criteria. The total sample included 307 patients, of which 147 were treated with folate supplementation, 80 patients with folinic acid and 67 patients with folic acid. A 79% reduction in mucosal and GI side effects was observed for folic acid [OR = 0.21 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.44)]. For folinic acid, a clinically but non-statistically significant reduction of 43% was found [OR = 0. 57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.15)]. No major differences were observed between low and high doses of folic or folinic acid. Haematologic side effects could not be analyzed, since details of each haematologic side effect by patients were not provided. No consistent differences in disease activity parameters were observed when comparing placebo and folic or folinic acid at low or high doses, although patients on high dose folinic acid had an increase in the number of tender joints, but not swollen joints. Large differences in costs across countries were found, but folinic acid was more expensive in all. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results support the protective effect of folate supplementation in reducing MTX side effects related to the oral and GI systems. We could not determine if folic was different from folinic acid. Therefore, for folinic acid to be considered cost-effective it must be found more effective than folic acid at reducing MTX side effects.

Clark P, Tugwell P, Bennet K, Bombardier C, Shea B, Wells G, Suarez-Almazor ME. · Health Services Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailbox Station 152, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77024, USA. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796386 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term benefit and risk of side-effects of injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis. 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 clinical trials (RCT) comparing injectable gold against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality of the RCTs was asessed by two reviewers (MS, BS) (kappa=1.0). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted by two reviewers from the publications for the 6 month endpoint. Sufficient data was obtained to conduct a pooled analysis of the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Results were analyzed as standardized weighted mean differences for swollen joints and global assessments and weighted mean differences for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. Heterogeneity was estimated using a chi-square test. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials and 415 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for injectable gold when compared to placebo. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between gold and placebo for the number of swollen joints was -0.5, translating into a percentage change of 30% in favour of gold adjusted for placebo. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR and patient and physician assessments. Twenty two percent of the treated patients withdrew from toxicity compared to 4% of controls (OR=3.9 - 95%Cl: 2.1 - 7.2). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although its use can be limited by the incidence of serious toxicity, injectable gold has an important clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Towheed T, Shea B, Wells G, Hochberg M. · Medicine and of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Etherington Hall-Room 2066, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #10796384 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized trials of analgesics and anti-inflammatory therapy in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. To determine which non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is the most effective, and which NSAID is the most toxic. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Medline up to August 1994. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or analgesics in patients with Osteoarthritis. The trials selected for inclusion were identified by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by a second (MH). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative assessments were performed using a quality scoring system designed for NSAID trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Both the design and analysis aspects of the trials were evaluated, each aspect being rated on a scale of 0 to 8. A quantitative method, which calculates the ratio of improvement produced by one NSAID to that produced by another, was used to rate the relative efficacy of different NSAIDs with respect to pain relief. Toxicity comparisons were made according to the reviewer findings. All quality assessments were carried out independently by two reviewers (TT, BS). All data abstraction was carried out by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by two other reviewers (BS, GW). A consensus was reached on discrepancies. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three trials were identified, and of these, 39 evaluated NSAIDs, while four evaluated only analgesics. The median design and analysis scores were two and four respectively. Six NSAIDs were included in at least five trials. Of these, indomethacin was rated more effective in five of its seven comparisons, but more toxic in seven of 12 comparisons. Only five of the 29 (17%) NSAID comparisons found statistically significant differences in efficacy. Of the 43 RCTs identified only 17 had statistical data available for future pooling for this meta-analysis. In the case where data was missing, authors of the trials will be contacted for inclusion of data in future reviews. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: NSAID trials in patients with OA of the hip appear to be weakened by the lack of standardization of case definition of OA, and also by the lack of standardization of outcome assessments. No clear recommendations for the choice of specific NSAID therapy in hip OA can be offered at this time based on this analysis.