Evidence Hub

Efficacy of sulfasalazine for the prevention of Pneumocystis pneumonia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A multicentric self-controlled case series study

T. Nunokawa, N. Chinen, K. Shimada, M. Kimura, M. Tateishi, Fangyi Chen, K. Setoguchi, M. Sugihara

Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 2022

49 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic lung infection and has been reported among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An animal study revealed that sulfasalazine enhances Pneumocystis clearance from the lung by accelerating macrophage activity.

METHODS

The self-controlled case series (SCCS) method was used to investigate the association between sulfasalazine use and PCP development in patients with RA without the effect of time-invariant, interpatient confounders. PCP episodes which developed in patients with RA at five hospitals between 2003 and 2019 were identified. PCP was defined by the following criteria: 1) detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in respiratory specimens by polymerase chain reaction; 2) clinical symptoms (pyrexia, dry cough, dyspnea or hypoxia); 3) diffuse interstitial infiltrate on chest imaging; and 4) absence of PCP prophylaxis. The PCP incidence rate ratio (IRR) was compared between periods with and without sulfasalazine use by conditional Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Fifty episodes of PCP were identified in 49 patients. Thirty patients received sulfasalazine at some point during their observation. While 49 episodes of PCP developed in 170.3 person-years without sulfasalazine use, only one episode of PCP developed in 103.7 person-years with sulfasalazine use. Sulfasalazine use was associated with a decreased PCP risk (adjusted IRR <0.01; 95% confidence interval <0.01-0.03) after adjusting for age and glucocorticoid,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 49 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free