Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on August 15, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
43/2/206    most recent
keh003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (23)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jobanputra, P.
Right arrow Articles by Burls, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jobanputra, P.
Right arrow Articles by Burls, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Rheumatology 2004; 43: 206-210
© British Society for Rheumatology 2003; all rights reserved


Clinical

A survey of British rheumatologists’ DMARD preferences for rheumatoid arthritis

P. Jobanputra1,2, J. Wilson1, K. Douglas2 and A. Burls1

1Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham and 2Department of Rheumatology, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Raddlebarn Road, Birmingham B29 6JD, UK.

Correspondence to: P. Jobanputra. E-mail: P.Jobanputra{at}bham.ac.uk

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.

KEY WORDS: Survey, DMARD, Prescribing preference, Rheumatologists, Rheumatoid arthritis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
A. McLean-Tooke, C. Aldridge, S. Waugh, G. P. Spickett, and L. Kay
Methotrexate, rheumatoid arthritis and infection risk--what is the evidence?
Rheumatology, August 1, 2009; 48(8): 867 - 871.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann Rheum DisHome page
S L Hider, A Silman, D Bunn, S Manning, D Symmons, and M Lunt
Comparing the long-term clinical outcome of treatment with methotrexate or sulfasalazine prescribed as the first disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with inflammatory polyarthritis
Ann Rheum Dis, November 1, 2006; 65(11): 1449 - 1455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann Rheum DisHome page
K M J Douglas, E Ladoyanni, G J Treharne, E D Hale, N Erb, and G D Kitas
Cutaneous abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis compared with non-inflammatory rheumatic conditions
Ann Rheum Dis, October 1, 2006; 65(10): 1341 - 1345.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
S. Rajakulendran and C. Deighton
Do guidelines for the prescribing and monitoring of leflunomide need to be modified?
Rheumatology, November 1, 2004; 43(11): 1447 - 1448.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.