Trial reportAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2001
Comparative study of intramuscular gold and methotrexate in a rheumatoid arthritis population from a socially deprived area.
Trial report in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Monotreatment With Conventional Antirheumatic Drugs or Glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: head-to-head trials and innovative study designs.BioMed research international · 2014Review
- Ex vivo effect of gold nanoparticles on porcine synovial membrane.Tissue barriers · 2013Article
- EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2010Review
- Have traditional DMARDs had their day? Effectiveness of parenteral gold compared to biologic agents.Clinical rheumatology · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the risk-benefit ratio of intramuscular gold (gold sodium thiomalate (GST)) and methotrexate (MTX) in a population with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from a deprived area.
methodsPatients with active RA were randomly assigned to open treatment with GST or MTX. Clinical and laboratory assessment was performed at 0, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Results were analysed on an intention to treat basis.
results141 patients were recruited-72 were randomly allocated to GST and 69 to MTX. There were no statistically significant differences found in either the clinical or demographic variables at baseline. At 48 weeks 31 (43%) patients continued to receive GST and 43 (62%) MTX. The median MTX dose achieved was 10 mg. Gold caused significantly more withdrawals for toxicity (43% GST v 19% MTX, p=0.0026, log rank test). Both groups experienced a significant improvement in erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C reactive protein, Ritchie Articular Index, and pain score by 24 weeks (p<0.001, Friedman test). Although a trend towards an improved Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score and global wellbeing was seen in both groups, this did not reach statistical significance. No differences in efficacy were found when the two groups were compared (Mann-Whitney).
conclusionGST and low dose MTX showed equivalent efficacy, but toxicity was more common in patients treated with GST. GST, although more toxic, remains a useful alternative for patients in whom MTX is contraindicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.