Plasmapheresis Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Authors:
  • IDIsaac L. Dwosh
    Isaac L. Dwosh
  • AGAlan R. Giles
    Alan R. Giles
  • PFPeter M. Ford
    Peter M. Ford
  • JPJoseph L. Pater
    Joseph L. Pater
  • TATassos P. Anastassiades
    Tassos P. Anastassiades
  • TGthe Queen's University Plasmapheresis Study Group
    the Queen's University Plasmapheresis Study Group
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Twenty-six patients with rheumatoid arthritis (average age, 57 years; average duration of disease, 11 years) who were unresponsive to antiinflammatory and slow-acting antirheumatic drug therapy were entered into a controlled, double-blind, crossover study to assess the efficacy of plasmapheresis therapy. All patients received 10 true and 10 sham aphereses as outpatients and continued to take their usual drugs. Twenty patients completed the study, and six were withdrawn — three because of poor venous access. Standard clinical and laboratory measures were assessed by personnel blinded to the therapy administered. Paired t-test analysis of seven clinical measures failed to show significant differences between the true and sham procedures (P = 0.36 to 0.96), although transient, mild improvement did occur during both cycles of apheresis, probably because of a placebo response. Significant reductions in the erythrocyte-sedimentation rate, rheumatoid factor titer, and levels of hemoglobin, IgM, and C3 occurred only with true therapy (P = 0.001, 0.01, 0.03, 0.045, and 0.005, respectively). We conclude that plasmapheresis does not have clinical benefit in chronic rheumatoid arthritis, in spite of impressive laboratory changes. (N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 1124–9.)

This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit: