Controlled trial of penicillamine in severe rheumatoid arthritis

Outcome and treatment of bucillamine-induced nephropathy

BACKGROUND

Bucillamine (BCL), a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, occasionally causes proteinuria. Renal specimens are reported to show segmental granular deposition of immunoglobulin G, associated with membranous nephropathy. Long-term course and optimal treatment have remained unknown, and were investigated here.

METHODS

We examined clinical records of 400 patients treated with BCL for rheumatoid arthritis, at our hospital from 1998 to 2003, finding 17 with proteinuria and biopsy-proven BCL-induced nephropathy.

RESULTS

In all 17 patients, proteinuria resolved without loss of renal function between 3 and 85 months after discontinuing BCL (14.1 +/- 3.4). The only factor influencing time to remission was pathologic stage of membranous nephropathy (stage I vs. stage II or III: 11.5 +/- 4.8 vs. 21.6 +/- 3.3 months; p = 0.02). Maximal proteinuria, total amount of BCL, BCL exposure time, and use of prednisolone or other immunosuppressant agents did not significantly influence time until remission.

CONCLUSION

The most important therapeutic step in treating BCL-induced nephropathy is to discontinue BCL. Prednisolone or other immunosuppressant agents might not be effective.

Old and new drugs used in rheumatoid arthritis: a historical perspective. Part 1: the older drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis is the paradigmatic immune-mediated inflammatory arthropathy and may be of comparatively recent, New World origin. Apart from the symptom-relieving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whose natural congeners have been in use since antiquity for musculoskeletal pain and inflammation, only a dozen drugs or drug classes--the disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs--are currently in common use in rheumatoid arthritis. Development of these drugs has been a notable achievement of the 20th century. Some were developed serendipitously (glucocorticoids, antimalarials), some were the product of faulty reasoning (gold, D-penicillamine), and others were applied for plausible reasons but whose mechanism remains unproven (sulfasalazine, methotrexate, minocycline). A minority were originally applied on the basis of actions that remain germane to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis as currently understood (azathioprine, cyclosporine, leflunomide, infliximab, etanercept). Among the latter are the more recently introduced and effective agents. The practical use of these drugs is determined by efficacy-toxicity considerations, which have also driven the recent development of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Penicillamine for rheumatoid arthritis

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.

Randomized trial of oral naproxen or local injection of betamethasone in lateral epicondylitis of the humerus

A randomized pilot study, comparing oral naproxen and a single betamethasone injection, was carried out in 21 patients suffering from lateral epicondylitis of the humerus ("tennis elbow"). The naproxen dosage was 250 mg per day for two weeks. Six milligrams of betamethasone in a long-acting form was given as a local injection. To achieve "blindness," the patients receiving naproxen were also given an injection of saline into the area of maximal tenderness at the epicondyle, while the patients getting the betamethasone-injection were given oral placebo tablets. At a clinical control after two weeks, five of the ten patients receiving naproxen and five of the 11 patients receiving betamethasone injection were improved. Thus, no apparent difference in effect could be noted at an evaluation after two weeks' treatment. No significant side effects were noted with any of the treatments.