Low-dose D-penicillamine therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Clinical evaluation of D-penicillamine by multicentric double-blind comparative study in chronic rheumatoid arthritis. Prospective trial of penicillamine in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Effect of patient education on adherence to drug treatment for rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled trial. Therapeutic effects of the combination of methotrexate and bucillamine in early rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study. A randomised trial of differentiated prednisolone treatment in active rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical benefits and skeletal side effects. A prospective clinical trial of D-penicillamine in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. D-penicillamine treatment improves survival in primary biliary cirrhosis. Auranofin improves outcome in early rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a 2-year, double blind placebo controlled study.
Two hundred twenty-five patients with active severe rheumatoid arthritis were admitted to a multiclinic, controlled, double-blind trial comparing the use of 500 mg D-penicillamine per day, 125 mg D-penicillamine per day, and placebo. One hundred seventy-one patients completed at least 30 weeks of therapy. The 500 mg D-penicillamine group demonstrated statistically significant improvement over the placebo group in grip strength, average circumference of swollen proximal interphalangeal joints, and patient assessment. While the trend was for greater improvement with the larger dose of D-penicillamine, there was no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups in duration of morning stiffness, walking time, physician's assessment, number of swollen joints, or scores for tender and swollen joints. The slight increase in efficacy of higher dose D-penicillamine was associated with increased toxicity. In order to evaluate clinical efficacy of D-penicillamine (DP) a double-blind study was conducted by the Metalcaptase Research Group consisting of forty-one rheumatological centers in Japan. A total of 179 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was divided into two groups; one treated with 5 mg (control group) and the other with 100 mg (drug group) of DP in capsule form. The trial lasted 24 weeks. Global judgment by physicians revealed that improvement was found in 27% in the controls and 65% in the drug group. Adverse reactions occurred in 34% of the controls and 49% of the drug group. Skin rashes, taste disturbances, gastrointestinal upset and proteinuria were frequent in the drug group, but severe or fatal reactions could not be seen in this trial. We evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of penicillamine in primary sclerosing cholangitis. In a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial, 39 patients received penicillamine (250 mg t.i.d.) and 31 received a placebo. The two groups were highly comparable at entry with regard to clinical, biochemical, radiologic, and hepatic histologic features. Although a predictable cupruresis and a decrease in levels of hepatic copper were achieved in patients taking penicillamine, there was no beneficial effect on disease progression within 36 mo or on overall survival. Progressive symptoms, deterioration in serial hepatic laboratory values, or histologic progression on sequential liver biopsy specimens were similar in both groups, occurring in greater than 80% of the entire study population. The development of major side effects led to the permanent discontinuation of penicillamine in 21% of the patients taking the drug. We conclude that the use of penicillamine in primary sclerosing cholangitis is not associated with a beneficial effect on disease progression or survival, and has considerable toxicity. The study also suggests that primary sclerosing cholangitis is a progressive disease in many patients. To determine whether a patient education programme (PE) would improve rates of adherence to a slow acting antirheumatic drug and to assess any subsequent effect on patient outcome.
                A randomly controlled study comprising 100 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (49 control CG; 51 experimental EG) requiring D-penicillamine (DPA). The same practitioner saw patients on seven occasions, for the same length of time. The EG received 7 x 30 minute one to one sessions of PE, while the CG received standard management. The primary measure of adherence was a pharmacological marker (phenobarbitone) encapsulated with the DPA assayed at monthly intervals for six months. Plasma viscosity (PV), C reactive protein, articular index, morning stiffness, and pain score were used to assess outcome.
                454 blood samples were collected and assayed and the pharmacological marker showed the EG to be significantly more adherent on more occasions than the CG (p<0.05). Patterns of adherence over time showed that at 12 weeks 86% (38/44) of those in the EG compared with 64% (29/45) of the CG remained adherent (p=0.01). These trends continued and by the end of the study 85% (29/34) of the EG compared with 55% (23/42) of the CG were taking their DPA as prescribed. Fifteen patients (12 from the EG) experienced side effects requiring study withdrawal and 14 patients requested study withdrawal (two from the EG). On study entry patients in the CG had significantly higher levels of PV than the EG and this remained so throughout the research. However, on completion, the health status of patients in both groups had improved significantly (p<0.01).
                PE significantly increased adherence to DPA and its effects persisted over a period of six months. No additional clinical benefit was detected in the EG in comparison with the CG. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination therapies are used widely, but there have been few reports clearly demonstrating that combination therapy is more effective than DMARD monotherapy. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind controlled trial in order to clarify that the combination of methotrexate and bucillamine is more effective than either alone. The subjects of this study were 71 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis within 2 years of onset. Dosages were 8 mg methotrexate with 5 mg folic acid per week (MTX group), 200 mg bucillamine per day (BUC group), or both MTX and BUC (combination group). Clinical effects and adverse reactions were observed for 96 weeks. The ACR 20 response rate was 79.2% in the combination group, significantly higher than the rates of 43.5% for the MTX group (P = 0.008) and 45.8% for the BUC group (P = 0.0178). The cumulative survival curve of maintaining the ACR 20 response was significantly higher in the combination group than in the MTX and BUC groups (P = 0.0123 and P = 0.0088, respectively). The mean increase in the total Sharp score over 96 weeks was 12.6 +/- 9.0 in the combination group, significantly lower (P = 0.0468) than the value of 28.0 +/- 28.3 for the single DMARD (combined MTX and BUC) group. The incidence of adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the three groups. It was concluded that the combination therapy with MTX and BUC showed significantly higher clinical efficacy than either of the single DMARD therapies. To study benefits and skeletal side effects of carefully monitored prednisolone treatment in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.
                One hundred and two patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with disease modifying anti-inflammatory drug (DMARD) alone or DMARD and prednisolone in a one year follow up study. Prednisolone was given in a dose regimen adapted to the disease activity of the individual patient. The mean dose was 6 mg and the mean cumulated dose was 2160 mg. Patients were followed up with disease activity parameters, radiograph of the hands (Larsen score), and bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine, distal forearm and hand. At one year 26 patients had withdrawn from the investigation leaving 76 patients for evaluation.
                The results showed that disease activity in the prednisolone treated group was reduced within two weeks. In the DMARD alone group disease activity was gradually reduced over months. At six months there was no difference between the groups as evaluated by an improvement score using a number of ACR criteria. Prednisolone in the present set up was not able to protect significantly against radiological disease progression, although there was a trend towards less progression in Larsen score in the prednisolone group, a matter that was further underlined in an intention to treat analysis. BMD data revealed a significant reduction in spinal BMD in the prednisolone group, whereas prednisolone seemed to have a protective effect against bone loss in the hand and distal forearm.
                This study does not allow any firm conclusions for or against the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with prednisolone. The data suggest that the beneficial effects of prednisolone are not as clear cut in established rheumatoid arthritis as in early disease. Furthermore the data indicate that treatment in the chosen relatively low dose does not provide sufficient control of disease. On the other hand the spinal bone loss observed in the prednisolone group does invite considerations about using higher doses. We conducted a prospective clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy and safety of high- vs. low-dose D-penicillamine in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Following clinical tests and liver biopsy diagnostic of primary biliary cirrhosis, 56 patients were randomized to receive either 250 or 750 mg D-penicillamine daily. Patients were monitored with clinical tests and annual liver biopsy. Randomization produced two groups without differences in demographic, clinical or histologic characteristics. During the trial, no differences were seen between the mean change in liver test results in patients in either treatment group. The 11% per year rise of bilirubin in the 750 mg dose group during the first 3 years was not significantly different from the 18% per year rise in the 250 mg dose group. No patient showed improvement on liver biopsy although patients on 750 mg D-penicillamine deteriorated more slowly. Side effects, particularly rash and dysgeusia, were more common in the 750 mg dose group. The frequency and severity of side effects were responsible for the early conclusion of our trial. Twenty-six patients experienced side effects necessitating discontinuation of D-penicillamine. No evidence of increased efficacy was demonstrated by high-dose D-penicillamine therapy, and side effects were observed in patients on 250 mg D-penicillamine daily. With the severity of adverse effects and continued progression of disease, D-penicillamine is not a clinically useful therapy in primary biliary cirrhosis. The copper-chelating, immunological, and antifibrotic effects of D-penicillamine indicated that it might be suitable for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). In a randomised clinical trail, 55 PBC patients received penicillamine (600 mg daily), and 32 received a placebo. Drug reactions developed in 16 patients on penicillamine. All deaths occurred in patients with stage 3 or 4 (late stage) liver histology on entry to the study. 5 (14%) of 37 penicillamine-treated patients and 10 (43%) of 23 placebo patients have died (p less than 0.01). Improvement in survival only became evident after 18 months. Survivors in the penicillamine group demonstrated a significant fall in serum aspartate transaminase, serum immunoglobulins, and liver copper concentrations. On follow-up liver biopsy 12-72 months (median 33) after joining the study, 21% of penicillamine-treated patients had less pronounced inflammation and piecemeal necrosis, whereas there had been no improvement in patients on placebo (p less than 0.02). Penicillamine did not retard the histological evolution of the liver disease from the early prefibrotic stages to the late fibrotic or cirrhotic stages. Both the copper-chelating and immunological effects of penicillamine are probably important in improving survival. The excellent prognosis of patients with PBC in its early histological stages, and the failure of penicillamine to prevent histological progression from early to late stages, suggests that penicillamine treatment should not be given to patients with PBC in the early (stage 1 or 2) histological phase of the disease. Penicillamine treatment is recommended in patients once liver biopsy has demonstrated histological results typical of late stage 3 or 4 PBC. The effect of early initiation of auranofin (AF) therapy on outcome measures was studied in a controlled 24-month double blind trial in 138 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using an intent to treat approach. Patients were randomized to AF or placebo but in case of insufficient effect or intolerable adverse events, they switched to open disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. Patients who started AF fared significantly better in improved joint swelling. Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire index, Keitel functional test, and mental depression, and furthermore, radiologic progression was significantly retarded. Our results support a disease modifying beneficial effect of AF in early active RA.se
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.