Abstract
Long-term outcomes of sulphasalazine (SASP) therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were compared with those of auranofin (AF).
Eight of the 41 patients and 6 of the 39 patients who were treated with either SASP or AF stopped each treatment within 3 months because of adverse effects of the agents. Shortterm efficacy, therefore, was compared between the remaining 33 patients received SASP and 33 patients treated with AF: SASP or AF was effective in 79% or 58% of the patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidences of short-term efficacy between SASP-and AF-treated groups. However, SASP more rapidly improved the activities of disease and laboratory parameters such as serum rheumatoid factor levels as compared with AF.
Cumulative continuation rates of treatment were compared between SASP-and AF-treated groups by using Kaplan-Meier method. The continuation rates were significantly higher in SASP-treated group within the range from 9 to 18 months after the beginning of treatments than AF-treated group. Thereafter, the rates of both treatments gradually lowered and became almost identical (about 20%).
Most of the adverse effects of SASP were mild and developed within one month after the beginning of treatment, although proteinuria developed in some of the AF-treated group several months later.
These results support the reported evidence that SASP is an effective and safe treatment for RA, and suggest that SASP is a candidate for the first-choice agent among several slow-acting anti-rheumatic drugs.
