For other rheumatic diseases, studies are mixed
Due to cyclosporine’s toxicity, less toxic DMARDs are being evaluated to replace it for treatment of other rheumatic diseases. A recent randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated systemic vasculitis showed methotrexate may be able to replace cyclosporine for both induction of remission (methotrexate=89.8% vs cyclosporine=93.5%; P=.041) and maintenance of remission (69.5% vs 46.5% at 18 months; P=.023).10
Initial trials on other rheumatic diseases have been small and have had varied results. There are mixed studies on the effectiveness of adding methotrexate to corticosteroids for giant cell arteritis.11,12
There has been no evidence of efficacy for the new TNF antagonists in either a small study on Sjögren’s syndrome (n=14)13 or a larger study on Wegener’s granulomatosis (n=180).14
The studies for use of DMARDs in lupus or scleroderma are of limited quality.
Recommendations from others
The Italian Society for Rheumatology consensus guidelines recommends TNF antagonists be considered in active psoriatic arthritis resistant to (a) NSAIDs, (b) at least 2 local steroid injections, and (c) at least 2 conventional DMARDs for patients with peripheral arthritis or enthesitis. They also recommend TNF antagonists be considered for psoriatic spondylitis resistant to NSAIDs.15
The Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) International Working Group and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, based on a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion, indicate that:
- There is good evidence for using NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors for symptomatic treatment.
- Conventional DMARDs are not well supported.
- TNF antagonists show a large benefit in both pain and function.
The ASAS/EULAR recommendation indicate that there is no evidence that any of these treatments actually modify the disease progression.16
Acknowledgments
The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force medical service or the US Air Force at large.