Japanese Journal of Rheumatology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Remodeling the therapeutic pyramid: evolving therapeutic strategies for rheumatoid arthritis

  • Kenneth R. Wilske
Review

Abstract

The approach to treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is undergoing dramatic change, With a prevalence of 1% of the general population. RA is the most common cause of disability that is potentially reversible if correct management of the disease is begun in the early phases. While the traditional therapeutic pyramid model has been in place for the past 25 years, evolving therapeutic strategies suggest that it is appropriate primarily for patients with benign synovitis, and an inverted pyramid is necessary to treat aggressive synovitis, control inflammation early and to prevent rapid joint destruction, disability and early death. Important principals underlying the remodeling of the therapeutic pyramid and evolving therapeutic strategies include: identifying patients with benign and aggressive synovitis: early control of inflammation to stabilize functional status at near normality; need for combination therapy in aggressive synovitis until a major breakthrough or ‘magic’ bullet becomes available; awareness that drugs that control inflammation in a more fundamental manner, such as disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, are more effective in pain control and disability than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and, most importantly, education of patients, primary and managing care physicians, health maintenance organizations, insurance companies, and government officials that two-thirds of the cost of RA lies in the complications of the disease and that providing resources for early aggressive therapy is a good investment for all. Successful treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is best accomplished by a coordinated team of a consultant rheumatologist and a managing primary care physician. Much like an early consultation with an oncologist when cancer is suspected, an early consultation with a rheumatologist can help separate benign and aggressive synovitis. If the latter, the rheumatologist can help identify important co-morbid conditions and recommend appropriate therapy. Follow-up programs can then be outlined to maintain control of inflammation at all times, utilize appropriate pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic physical and occupational therapy modalities for mechanical pain, and highlight potential toxicities to be monitored. This program, initiated early, will help prevent administration of toxic drugs to patients with benign synovitis. And, just as important for patients with aggressive synovitis, this strategy is designed to reduce the high incidence of morbidity and mortality and the costly episodes of hospitalizations and salvage surgery that can be so devastating to patients and their families.

Key words

Rheumatoid arthritis therapeutic pyramid therapeutic strategy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nepom GT, Nepom B, Klippel J,et al., Genetics of the major histocompatibility complex in rheumatoid arthritis, in:Rheumatology, 2nd edn, Vol. I (5), pp. 7–8. Mosby, London (1998).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koh WH, Chan SH, Lin YN,et al., Association of HLA-DRB1 *0405 with extra articular manifestations and erosions in Singaporean Chinese with rheumatoid arthritis,J Rheumatol 24, 629–632 (1997).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott DL, Symmonds DPM, Coulton BL,et al., Long-term outcome of treating rheumatoid arthritis: Results after 20 years,Lancet i, 1108–1111 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kushner I, Does aggressive therapy of rheumatoid arthritis affect outcome? (Editorial),J Rheumatol 16, 124 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pincus T, Callahan LF, Taking mortality in rheumatoid arthritis seriously-predictive markers, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity,J Rheumatol 13, 541–5478 (1986).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brook A, Corbett M, Radiographic change in early rheumatoid arthritis,Ann Rheum Dis 36, 70–73 (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuchs HA, Kaye JJ, Callahan LF,et al., Evidence of significant radiologic erosions in rheumatoid arthritis in the first 2 years of disease.J Rheumatol 16, 585–591 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caruso I, Santandrea S, Sarsi Puttini P,et al., Clinical, laboratory, and radiographic features of early RA,J Rheumatol 17, 1268–1273 (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yelin E, The costs of RA: absolute, incremental, and marginal estimates,J Rheumatol 23 (suppl.), 47–51 (1996).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams JH, Rheumatoid arthritis, in:Primer on the Rheumatic Diseases, Schumacher HR Jr, Klippel JH, Koopman WJ (Eds), p. 91. Arthritis Foundation, Atlanta (1993).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Sullivan JB, Catheart ES, The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis: follow-up evaluation of the effect of criteria on rates in Sudbury, Massachusetts,Ann Intern Med 76, 573–577 (1972).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikkelsen WM, Dodge H, A four-year follow-up of suspected rheumatoid arthritis: The Tecumseh, Michigan Community Health Study,Arthritis Rheum 16, 565–567 (1969).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilske K, Rheumatoid arthritis: Evolving concepts in therapy: Don’t fiddle while joints burn,Rheumatology in Europe 2514, 145–149 (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fries JF, Spitz PW, William CA,et al., A toxicity index for comparison of side effects among different drugs,Arthritis Rheum 31, 121 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silverstein FE, Graham DY, Senior JR,et al., Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,Ann Intern Med 123, 241–245 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myllykangas-Luosujarui R, Aho K,et al., Death attributed to anti-rheumatic medication in a nationwide series of 1666 patients with RA who have died,J Rheumatol 22, 2214–2218 (1995).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fries JF, NSAID gastropathy: the second most deadly rheumatic disease? Epidemiology and risk appraisal,J Rheumatol 18 (suppl. 28), 6 (1991).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Symmonds D, Excess mortality in RA — is it the disease or the drugs? (Editorial),J Rheumatol 22, 2200–2202 (1995).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iannuzzi L, Dawson N, Zein N,et al., Does drug therapy slow radiographic deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis?,N Engl J Med 309, 1023–1028 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hepburn B, What is a disease modifying antirheumatic drug?,J Rheumatol 15 (suppl. 16), 40–42 (1988).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh G, Ramey O, Fries J, Effectiveness and toxicity profiles of drug treatment in RA,Arthritis Rheum 37, S 196 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Emery P, Therapeutic approaches for early rheumatoid arthritis. How early? How aggressive?,Br J Rheumatol 34 (suppl. 2), 87–90 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCarty DJ, Suppress rheumatoid inflammation early and leave the pyramid to the Egyptians (Editorial),J Rheumatol 16, 565 (1989).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clark P, Casas E, Tugwell P,et al., Hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized controlled trial,Ann Intern Med 119 (11), 1067–1071 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hannonen P, Mottonen T, Hakola M,et al., Sulfasalazine in early rheumatoid arthritis. A 48-week double-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled study.Arthritis Rheum 18 (7), 1015–1020 (1993).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Borg G, Allander E, Berg E,et al., Auranofin treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis may postpone early retirement. Results from a 2-year double blind trial,J Rheumatol 18 (7), 1015–1020 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Itokzu M, Matsunaga T, Oshita Y,et al., Efficacy and safety of auranofin in patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis,Clin Ther 17 (1), 60–73 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Dell JR, Haire CE, Palmer W,et al., Treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis with minocycline or placebo: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Arthritis Rheum 40 (5), 842–848 (1997).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Egsmose C, Lund B, Borg E,et al., Patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefit from early 2nd line therapy: 5 year followup of a prospective double blind placebo controlled study,J Rheumatol 22 (12), 2208–2213 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weinblatt ME, Rheumatoid arthritis: Treat now, not laterl (Editorial),Ann Intern Med 124, 773–774 (1966).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines, Guideline for the management of rheumatoid arthritis,Arthritis Rheum 39, 713–722 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Young A, Brook A, Corbett M,et al., The clinical assessment of joint inflammatory activity in rheumatoid arthritis related to radiographic progression,Rheumatol Rehabil 19 (1), 14–19 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amos RS, Constable TJ, Crookson IZA,et al., Rheumatoid arthritis: relationship of C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rates and radiographic range,BR Med J i, 195 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dawes PT, Fowler PD, Clarke S,et al., Rheumatoid arthritis: treatment that controls the C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate reduces radiographic progression,BR J Rheumatol 25 (1), 44–49 (1986).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Emory P, Assessment of rheumatoid arthritis — a clinician’s view,J Rheumatol 21, S20 (1994).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF, The comparative efficacy and toxicity of second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Results of two meta-analyses,Arthritis Rheum 33, 1449–1491 (1990).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wolfe F, Fifty years of antirheumatic therapy: the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis,J Rheumatol 22 (suppl.), 24–31 (1990).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wolfe F, Hawley DF, Remission in rheumatoid arthritis,J Rheumatol 12, 245 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thompson PW, Kirwan JR, Barnes CG, Practical results with treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drugs,Br J Rheumatol 24, 167–175 (1985).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Situanyake RD, Grindulis KA, McConkty B, Long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with sulfasalazine, gold, or penicillamine: A comparison using life-table methods,Ann Rheum Dis 48, 177–187 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Paulus HE, The use of combinations of disease-modifying antirheumatic agents in rheumatoid arthritis,Arthritis Rheum 33, 113–120 (1990).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boers M, Ramsden M, Long acting drug combinations in rheumatoid arthritis: a formal overview,J Rheumatol 18, 316–324 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wilske KR, Inverting the therapeutic pyramid: observations and recommendations on new directions on rheumatoid arthritis therapy based on the author’s experience,Semin Arthritis Rheum 23, 11–18 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    O’Dell JR, Haire CE, Erikson N,et al., Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of all three medications,N Engl J Med 334 (20), 1287–1291 (1996).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    O’Dell JR, Haire CE, Erikson N,et al., J Rheumatol 44 (suppl.), 72–74 (1996).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tugwell P, Pincus T, Yocum D,et al., Combination therapy with cyclosporine and methotrexate in severe rheumatoid arthritis. The Methotrexate-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group,N Engl J Med 333 (3), 137–141 (1995).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Markusse HM,et al., Randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulfasalazine with sulfasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis,Lancet 350, 309–318 (1997).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fries JF, Effectiveness and toxicity considerations in outcome directed therapy in RA,J Rheumatol 23 (suppl. 44), 102–106 (1996).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wilke WS, Clough JD, Therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: combinations of disease-modifying drugs and new paradigms of treatment,Semin Arthritis Rheum 21 (suppl. 1), 1550–2134 (1991).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilske KR, Healey LA, Remodeling the pyramid: a concept whose time has come,J Rheumatol 16, 565–567 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Dell JR, Nepom B, Haire C,et al. DRBl typing in rheumatoid arthritis is useful in predicting response to specific therapy (abstract),Arthritis Rheum 39 (suppl.), S305 (1966).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hochberg MC, Predicting the prognosis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: is there a crystal ball? (Editorial),J Rheumatol 20, 1265–1267 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nepom GT, Beyers P, Seyfared G,et al., HLA genes associated with rheumatoid arthritis,Arthritis Rheum 32, 15–21 (1989).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weyand CM, Hicok KC, Conn DL,et al., The influence of HLA-DRB genes on disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis,Ann Intern Med 117, 801–806 (1991).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    McCarty DJ, Carrera GF, Intractable rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment with combined cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, and hydroxychloroquine,J Am Med Ass 248, 1718–1723 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koopman WJ, Moreland LW, Rheumatoid arthritis: anticytokine therapies on the horizon (Editoria),Ann Intern Med 128, 231–233 (1998).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© VSP and Japanese Rheumatism Association 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth R. Wilske
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Washington, School of MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations