Auranofin versus penicillamine in rheumatoid arthritis. One-year results from a prospective clinical investigation.

Forty patients with definite or classical active rheumatoid arthritis were stratified by the minimization procedure to auranofin (6 mg/day) or penicillamine (go slow and low regime). This investigation is a prospective planned 3 year patient and 'doctor-open' as well as 'doctor-blind' clinical trial. This article describes the results after 12 months. Both drugs decreased disease activity and improved the functional capacity in a similar way. Two patients in the auranofin group and 5 in the penicillamine group stopped treatment due to major side effects. Four other patients in the auranofin group left treatment: 2 due to death from unrelated cause and 2 according to the Helsinki II Declaration. After one year a further patient in the auranofin group and 2 in the penicillamine group stopped treatment due to lack of clinical effect. Side effects due to auranofin were statistically more frequent distal in the gastrointestinal tract (loose stools/diarrhoea) than with penicillamine. In contrast, penicillamine produced significantly more side effects in the oral cavity (mainly taste disturbances) than auranofin. Other side effects were about equal in the two groups, but 2 cases of severe proteinuria and one with obstructive lung disease were observed in the penicillamine group. Only 3 patients did not complain of any untoward effect during the 12-month period. We conclude that on the basis of this one year investigation it is an open question whether one should select auranofin or penicillamine for the treatment of clinical active rheumatoid arthritis.