Horton R J
Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1983;51:100-10. doi: 10.3109/03009748309095361.
The comparative safety and efficacy of the orally active gold compound, auranofin, and parenteral gold compounds, principally gold sodium thiomalate, are reviewed. No difference in efficacy was detected in eight of the 12 published studies which compared auranofin and gold sodium thiomalate. Two studies favoured auranofin and two gold sodium thiomalate. Other parenteral gold compounds appeared more effective than auranofin. Adverse reactions and withdrawal rate from parenteral gold was found to be 2-3 times greater than from auranofin. Withdrawals due to inefficacy were found to be higher for auranofin than for parenteral gold although the incidence of inefficacy in the parenteral gold treated population was lower than that reported in other series. The nature of side effects from the two treatments was noticeably different; lower bowel symptoms with auranofin, and mucocutaneous lesions with parenteral gold compounds. Significant laboratory index changes were uncommon with both treatments, proteinuria being the most usual reason for withdrawal. Again the incidence of proteinuria and other laboratory abnormalities was less in the parenteral gold group than previously reported. Auranofin is possibly as effective and is definitely safer than parenteral gold compounds, and allows for longer periods of treatment.
对口服活性金化合物金诺芬与胃肠外金化合物（主要是硫代苹果酸金钠）的比较安全性和疗效进行了综述。在比较金诺芬和硫代苹果酸金钠的12项已发表研究中，有8项未检测到疗效差异。两项研究支持金诺芬，两项支持硫代苹果酸金钠。其他胃肠外金化合物似乎比金诺芬更有效。发现胃肠外金的不良反应和停药率比金诺芬高2至3倍。尽管胃肠外金治疗人群中无效的发生率低于其他系列报道，但金诺芬因无效导致的停药率高于胃肠外金。两种治疗的副作用性质明显不同；金诺芬引起下肠道症状，胃肠外金化合物引起皮肤黏膜病变。两种治疗中显著的实验室指标变化都不常见，蛋白尿是最常见的停药原因。同样，胃肠外金组中蛋白尿和其他实验室异常的发生率低于先前报道。金诺芬可能与胃肠外金化合物一样有效，并且肯定更安全，并且允许更长时间的治疗。
