Pasero G, Pellegrini P, Ambanelli U, Ciompi M L, Colamussi V, Ferraccioli G, Barbieri P, Mazzoni M R, Menegale G, Trippi D
Arthritis Rheum. 1982 Aug;25(8):923-9. doi: 10.1002/art.1780250803.
Fifty-seven patients took part in a controlled double-blind trial between tiopronin and D-penicillamine as basic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Thirty-nine (19 receiving tiopronin, 20 receiving D-penicillamine) completed the trial after 1 year. Both drugs resulted in a decrease of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Ritchie index, and Lee index and in a sparing effect on symptomatic antiinflammatory therapy. Improvement in these variables was statistically highly significant at any interval with tiopronin, but was sometimes less or not at all significant with D-penicillamine. Nevertheless, the difference in effects between the 2 drugs never reached statistical significance. Six patients receiving tiopronin and 6 receiving D-penicillamine were taken out of the experiment because of side effects.
57名患者参与了一项对照双盲试验，比较了硫普罗宁和青霉胺作为类风湿关节炎基础治疗药物的效果。39名患者（19名接受硫普罗宁，20名接受青霉胺）在1年后完成了试验。两种药物均使红细胞沉降率、里奇指数和李氏指数降低，并对症状性抗炎治疗起到了节省效应。在任何时间段，硫普罗宁治疗后这些变量的改善在统计学上都具有高度显著性，但青霉胺治疗时有时改善程度较小或无显著性差异。然而，两种药物的疗效差异从未达到统计学显著性。6名接受硫普罗宁和6名接受青霉胺的患者因副作用退出了试验。
