Japanese Journal of Rheumatology

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 117–129

A 15-year follow-up study on the outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

  • Kenichi Miyagi
  • Takeshi Azuma
  • Akifumi Naitoh
  • Hiroyuki Sakaida
  • Moromichi Sakata
  • Takemasa Nakagawa
  • Hideo Miyahara
  • Masuo Shirataka
Original Paper


This study aimed to investigate the natural course of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after treatment for 15 years based on the present data of patients who had been enrolled in a 1 year study of early RA conducted by the Japan Rheumatism Foundation in 1981 and 1982. An examination form was mailed to each doctor who had participated in the previous study requesting them to record the present data of the patients. The patients were requested to fill out the AIMS2 questionnaire. Patients had been randomly assigned into three treatment groups: those treated with gold, with d-penicillamine and without slow acting antirheumatic drugs (SAARDs). Information was obtained concerning 74 of 161 patients who had completed the previous 1 year study. Clinical remission was observed in 20 of 74 patients. The current status of RA by physician’s assessment was reported to be well controlled in 32 of 48 cases (66.7%); however, no remarkable improvement was seen in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR, and the number of painful joints compared with the values at entry 15 years previously. Radiographical stages showed progression and the average score of AIMS2 had deteriorated in most cases. High ESR, progression of joint damage and positive rheumatoid factors at the early stage of RA were suggested to be factors relating to QOL deterioration. These results suggest that it would be difficult to modify the natural course of RA by currently used treatment strategies with SAARDs.

Key words

Slow acting antirheumatic drugs prognostic factors AIMS2 remission joint damages 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pincus T, Callahan LF, How many types of patients meet classification criteria for RA? (Editorial),J Rheumatol 21, 1385–1389 (1994).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Heijde DM, van Leeuwen MA, van Riel PLet al., Biannual radiographic assessments of hands and feet in a three-year prospective followup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis,Arthritis Rheum 35, 26–35 (1992).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van der Heide A, Jacobs JWG, Bijisma JWJet al., The effectiveness of early treatment with ‘second line’ antirheumatic drugs. A randomized controlled trial,Ann Intern Med 124, 699–707 (1996).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borg G, Allander E, Berg Met al., Auranofin treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis may postpone early retirement; results from a 2-year double blind trial,J Rheumatol 18, 1015–1020 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hannonen P, Mottonen T, Hakola M, Oka M, Sulfasalazine in early rheumatoid arthritis; a 48-week, double-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled study,Arthritis Rheum 36, 1501–1509 (1993).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iannuzzi L, Dawson N, Zein N, Kushner I, Does drug therapy slow radiographic deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis?N Eng J Med 309, 1023–1028 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nordstrom DM, West SG, Anderson PA, Sharp GT, Pulse methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis; a controlled prospective roentgenographic study,Ann Intern Med 107, 797–801 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weinblatt ME, Polisson R, Blotner SDet al. The effects of drug therapy on radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a 36 week randomized trial comparing methotrexate and auranofin,Arthritis Rheum 36, 613–619 (1993).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kushner I, Does aggressive therapy of rheumatoid arthritis affect outcome? (Editorial),J Rheumatol 16, 1–4 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drug Evaluation Committee of the Japan Rheumatism Foundation, Long term comparative studies on gold, D-penicillamine and NSAIds for treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis; I. Evaluation of one year’s treatment,Jpn J Rheumatol 1, 305–317 (1989).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lansbury J, Methods for evaluating rheumatoid arthritis, in:Arthritis and Allied Conditions, Hollander JC (Ed.), 7th edn, pp. 269–291. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia (1969).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJet al., AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded arthritis impact measurement scales health status questionnaire,Arthritis Rheum 35, 1–10 (1992).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koote K, Isomaki H, Muturu O, Death rate and causes of death in RA patients during a period of five years,Scand J Rheumatol 6, 241–244 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van den Broucke J, Hazevoet HM, Cats A, Survival and cause of death in rheumatoid arthritis: a 25-year prospective follow up,J Rheumatol 11, 158–161 (1984).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshizawa Y, Kudo H, Iwano Ket al., Causes of death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis_ — analysis of 117 cases for 13 years,Ryumachi 30, 247–254 (1990) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steinbrocker O, Traeger CH, Batterman RC, Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis,J Am Med Ass 160, 659–662 (1949).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makisara P, Nissila M, Kajander Aet al., Comparison of penicillamine and gold treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis,Scand J Rheumatol 7, 166–170 (1978).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pincus T, Rheumatoid arthritis: disappointing long-term outcomes despite successful short-term clinical trials,J Clin Epidemiol 41, 1037–1041 (1988).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wolfe F, Hawley DJ, Remission in rheumatoid arthritis,J Rheumatol 12, 245–252 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mottonen T, Paimela L, Ahonen Jet al., Outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to the ‘sawtooth’ strategy,Arthritis Rheum 39, 996–1005 (1996).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolfe F, Hawley DJ, Cathey MA, Termination of slow acting antirheumatic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a 14-year prospective evaluation of 1017 consecutive starts,J Rheumatol 15, 994–1002 (1988).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fries JF, Reevaluating the therapeutic approach to rheumatoid arthristis; the ‘sawtooth’ strategy,J Rheumatol 17, 12–15 (1990).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rau R, Herborn G, Karger T, Werder D, Retardation of radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate therapy: a controlled study,Arthritis Rheum 34, 1236–1244 (1991).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamamoto S, Nakata S, Takubo N, Can DMARDs prevent articular destruction in RA?J Orthopaed Rheum 9, 52–56 (1996).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egmose C, Lund B, Borg Get al., Patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefit from early 2nd line therapy: 5 year followup of a prospective double blind placebo controlled study,J Rheumatol 2, 2208–2213 (1995).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van der Heijde DM, van der Riel PL, van Leeuwen MAet al., Prognostic factors for radiographic damage and physical disability in early rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective follow-up study of 147 patients,Br J Rheumatol 31, 519–525 (1992).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pincus T, Callahan F, Prognostic markers of activity and damage in rheumatoid arthritis: Why clinical trials and inception cohort studies indicate were favourable outcomes than studies of patients with established disease (Editorial),Br J Rheumatol 34, 196–199 (1995).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Combe B, Eliaow JF, Doures JPet al., Prognostic factors in rheumatoid arthritis: Comparative study of two subsets of patients according to severity of articular damage,Br J Rheumatol 34, 529–534 (1995).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hochberg MC Predicting the prognosis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: is there a crystal ball? (Editorial),J Rheumatol 20, 1265–1267 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolarz G, Mayrhofer F, Peichl Pet al., Prognostic factors for the outcome of methotrexate treatment in rheumatoid arthritis,Clin Rheumatol 14, 515–518 (1995).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coste J, Spira A, Clerc D, Paolaggi J, Prediction of articular destruction in rheumatoid arthritis: disease activity markers revisited,J Rheumatol 24, 28–34 (1997).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilske KR, Healey LA, Remodeling the pyramid: a concept whose time has come (Editorial),J Rheumatol 16, 565–567 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weuamd CM, Hicok KC, Goronzy JJet al., The influence of HLA-DRB1 genes on disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis,Ann Intern Med 117, 801–806 (1992).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Toda H, Maekawa T, Takemura Set al., The relationship between HLA-DRB1 genotype and progression of bone destruction with rheumatoid arthritis,Jpn J Rheumatol 6, 363–371 (1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VSP and Japanese Rheumatism Association 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenichi Miyagi
    • 1
  • Takeshi Azuma
    • 2
  • Akifumi Naitoh
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Sakaida
    • 1
  • Moromichi Sakata
    • 1
  • Takemasa Nakagawa
    • 1
  • Hideo Miyahara
    • 3
  • Masuo Shirataka
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Toyoko HospitalSt Marianna UniversityKawasakiJapan
  2. 2.Drug Evaluation Committee of the Japan Rheumatism FoundationTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Allied Health Sciences, School of MedicineKitasato University, KitasatoSagamiharaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Medical Informatics, School of MedicineKitasato UniversitySagamiharaJapan

Personalised recommendations