M. Comer et al., ARE SLOW-ACTING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUGS MONITORED TOO OFTEN - AN AUDIT OFCURRENT CLINICAL-PRACTICE, British journal of rheumatology, 34(10), 1995, pp. 966-970
Rheumatologists usually recommend monthly blood monitoring when patien
ts with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are treated with slow-acting anti-rh
eumatic drugs (SAARDs). Is monthly monitoring needed or could its freq
uency be reduced? We audited the opinions of UK rheumatologists and re
viewed clinical experience at three centres. To ascertain the interval
at which patients are monitored and the determinants of monitoring po
licy we sent a questionnaire to 193 consultant rheumatologists; 143 (7
4%) replied. The majority use monthly monitoring for most SAARDs excep
t sulphasalazine, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. There is extensi
ve variation, which is not related to the type of rheumatology unit or
whether a shared scheme with general practitioners is used. Reviewing
experience in 390 patients treated with SAARDs at three adjacent rheu
matology units in London showed that haematological adverse reactions
were infrequent. During 1560 patient-years of treatment involving 18 7
20 monthly monitoring visits there were 13 haematological adverse reac
tions(ll thrombocytopenias and two leucopenias). Five thrombocytopenia
s occurred in the first 6 months of therapy; two were gradual and thre
e developed more rapidly over 1-2 months. Six thrombocytopenias develo
ped after 6 months of treatment; five occurred gradually over 5 months
or more and one borderline low platelet count was seen once. The two
leucopenias were borderline low white cell counts occurring gradually
over 3-6 months. Such frequent monitoring is expensive. The total cost
of monitoring 390 patients for 1560 patient-years was $420 000. The c
ost of detecting each adverse reaction was $32 000. Three-monthly moni
toring when therapy is established after an initial stabilizing period
would have identified seven out of eight late adverse reactions. Moni
toring policies are mainly based on clinical consensus with few prospe
ctive studies of their value; they need re-evaluation.