PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10589351

Early developments in combination therapy.

Abstract

The concept of combination therapy implies the concurrent use of two or more slow-acting antirheumatic drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis. This review places such combination therapy into an historical context and evaluates studies carried out before 1990. There were no published studies before 1980 of combination therapy, and between 1980 and 1990 there were 11 published studies. Three were conventional randomised controlled trials, three were non-randomised studies of parallel group design, four were observational open studies, and one was a retrospective review. Altogether 486 patients were studied with the numbers of cases in each study varying between 12 and 101. The main combinations used were penicillamine + hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, gold + hydroxychloroquine, and sulphasalzine + penicillamine. Six studies concluded that combination therapy helped patients, three suggested possible benefits, and two gave essentially negative findings. These two negative studies were randomised controlled trials. Most studies indicated an increase in adverse events with combination therapy. The average erythrocyte sedimentation rate on combination therapy fell by 21.4%. A majority of patients remained on the therapy for 6-12 months. The balance of evidence in 1990 suggested that combination therapy had a modest advantage. However, the trials were too small to detect its true value, and the combinations used were not ideal. In particular, combining gold or penicillamine with other drugs appeared to give too much toxicity. The future development of the field would depend on identifying more effective combinations of drugs and undertaking larger and better-designed trials.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D L Scott, S Farrow, S I Yeo. Early developments in combination therapy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10589351/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of thiopurine methyltransferase polymorphism screening by polymerase chain reaction for treatment with azathioprine in Korea.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the value of genotype-based dosing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based polymorphism screening in terms of cost-effectiveness for treatment with azathioprine in Korea. METHODS: Decision analysis was employed to compare a genotype-based dosing strategy with the conventional weight-based dosing strategy using a hypothetical cohort composed of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus patients. The time horizon was set up as 1 yr. Direct medical costs were used. Data used were obtained from previous reports, except for PCR and admission costs, which were from real cases. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Outcomes were measured as a total expected cost and an incremental cost-effective ratio. RESULTS: In the base case model, total expected cost and the probability of not dropping out owing to serious adverse events of the conventional weight-based dosing and the genotype-based dosing strategy were 1339 x 10(3) Korean won (1,117 US dollars) and 1109 x 10(3) Korean won (926 US dollars), and 97.06 and 99.90%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that a genotype-based dosing strategy through PCR-based thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) polymorphism screening is less costly and more effective than the conventional weight-based dosing strategy in Korea, as it was associated with a marked reduction in the number of serious adverse events.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

A survey of British rheumatologists' DMARD preferences for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the current disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) preferences of UK consultant rheumatologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent in May 2002. We asked which DMARD(s) was most frequently preferred first and sought the most typical sequence of DMARDs, including DMARD combinations. Also we determined the extent to which prognostic and other factors influenced treatment choices. Comments were invited, written responses abstracted and key themes identified. RESULTS: After two mailings, 331 (of 460; 72%) suitable questionnaires were returned. Ninety-five per cent (315/331) preferred methotrexate (154, 46.5%) or sulphasalazine (144, 43.5%) or either of these two (17, 5%) as first-choice agent. Of those who chose methotrexate first, 80% (123/154) ranked sulphasalazine second, 45% (55/123) combined sulphasalazine and methotrexate and 49% (27/55) then added hydroxychloroquine to this combination, in active disease. Of those who chose sulphasalazine first, 95% (137/144) ranked methotrexate second, 75% (113/150) preferring methotrexate monotherapy and 12% (18/150) the combination with sulphasalazine. Rheumatologists who preferred sulphasalazine first more commonly used subsequent DMARDs singly than those who started with methotrexate (P < 0.0001). Leflunomide was more commonly preferred than intramuscular gold as third choice (52/145 vs 29/145; P < 0.003). The most popular sequence of DMARDs was methotrexate or sulphasalazine, singly or in combination, leflunomide, intramuscular gold and anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. Poor prognostic factors influenced DMARD choice, but patient occupation and drug costs did not. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate has displaced other DMARDs, especially sulphasalazine, as agent of first choice and newer agents have displaced older DMARDs. Whether the expressed preference for particular DMARDs accurately reflects actual use, and is optimal in rheumatoid arthritis, remains to be determined.

Antirheumatic Agents↗