Methotrexate treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review on doses and administration routes

IF 2.1 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY BMC Rheumatology Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI:10.1186/s41927-024-00381-y
Esteban Rubio-Romero, César Díaz-Torné, María José Moreno-Martínez, Julen De-Luz
{"title":"Methotrexate treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis: a scoping review on doses and administration routes","authors":"Esteban Rubio-Romero, César Díaz-Torné, María José Moreno-Martínez, Julen De-Luz","doi":"10.1186/s41927-024-00381-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To describe the evidence of methotrexate (MTX) initiation strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, in the case of non-responders, analyse the efficacy and safety of route and dose optimisation. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of randomised controlled trials according to PRISMA Scoping Reviews Checklist and the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched without language restriction, and hand searches of relevant articles were examined. We identified 1,367 potentially eligible studies, of which 12 were selected based on the titles and abstracts and then on the full-length articles. In naïve-MTX patients, a linear dose-response relationship for starting dose was found between 5 mg/m2/week (7.5–10 mg/week) and 10 mg/m2/week (15–22 mg/week), without toxicity correlation. A higher initial dose of MTX (25 mg vs. 15 mg) was more effective, resulting in fewer dose increases due to ineffectiveness and more dose reductions due to higher remission rates. There was also a trend towards increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Comparing different routes of administration of MTX, subcutaneous MTX showed a statistically higher ACR20 response (85%) in comparison with oral MTX (77%) (p < 0.05). The clinical efficacy and safety of accelerated and conventional start MTX regimens were comparable between 7.5 and 15 mg with a 2,5 mg dose increase every two weeks. In RA patients who have failed the initial treatment with MTX, the stepwise increase in MTX doses is associated with a higher ACR20 response and sustained remission rate than other strategies. In MTX non-responders, optimisation to SC MTX was associated with improvements in ACR20 and ACR50 rates with similar toxicity between groups. In the early RA patients subgroup, SC MTX showed higher ACR20 response rates than oral MTX, and intensive oral methods have a much higher sustained remission rate, shorter mean time to remission, and better clinical disease activity measures than conventional treatments. Higher starting doses of MTX and initial subcutaneous MTX made better performance in improving the ACR20 response, although the clinical effectiveness and safety of other MTX start regimens are comparable. This scoping review provides evidence in support of optimising MTX treatment in terms of route and dose prior to concluding that MTX treatment in RA patients has failed.","PeriodicalId":9150,"journal":{"name":"BMC Rheumatology","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-024-00381-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To describe the evidence of methotrexate (MTX) initiation strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, in the case of non-responders, analyse the efficacy and safety of route and dose optimisation. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of randomised controlled trials according to PRISMA Scoping Reviews Checklist and the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched without language restriction, and hand searches of relevant articles were examined. We identified 1,367 potentially eligible studies, of which 12 were selected based on the titles and abstracts and then on the full-length articles. In naïve-MTX patients, a linear dose-response relationship for starting dose was found between 5 mg/m2/week (7.5–10 mg/week) and 10 mg/m2/week (15–22 mg/week), without toxicity correlation. A higher initial dose of MTX (25 mg vs. 15 mg) was more effective, resulting in fewer dose increases due to ineffectiveness and more dose reductions due to higher remission rates. There was also a trend towards increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Comparing different routes of administration of MTX, subcutaneous MTX showed a statistically higher ACR20 response (85%) in comparison with oral MTX (77%) (p < 0.05). The clinical efficacy and safety of accelerated and conventional start MTX regimens were comparable between 7.5 and 15 mg with a 2,5 mg dose increase every two weeks. In RA patients who have failed the initial treatment with MTX, the stepwise increase in MTX doses is associated with a higher ACR20 response and sustained remission rate than other strategies. In MTX non-responders, optimisation to SC MTX was associated with improvements in ACR20 and ACR50 rates with similar toxicity between groups. In the early RA patients subgroup, SC MTX showed higher ACR20 response rates than oral MTX, and intensive oral methods have a much higher sustained remission rate, shorter mean time to remission, and better clinical disease activity measures than conventional treatments. Higher starting doses of MTX and initial subcutaneous MTX made better performance in improving the ACR20 response, although the clinical effectiveness and safety of other MTX start regimens are comparable. This scoping review provides evidence in support of optimising MTX treatment in terms of route and dose prior to concluding that MTX treatment in RA patients has failed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
类风湿性关节炎的甲氨蝶呤治疗策略:剂量和给药途径的范围界定综述
描述类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者甲氨蝶呤(MTX)起始治疗策略的证据,并在无应答的情况下分析途径和剂量优化的有效性和安全性。我们根据PRISMA范围界定综述核对表以及Arksey和O'Malley提出的框架,对随机对照试验进行了全面的范围界定综述。我们对 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 进行了无语言限制的检索,并对相关文章进行了人工检索。我们确定了 1,367 项可能符合条件的研究,根据标题和摘要,然后根据全文,从中筛选出 12 项研究。在新药MTX患者中,发现起始剂量在5毫克/平方米/周(7.5-10毫克/周)和10毫克/平方米/周(15-22毫克/周)之间存在线性剂量-反应关系,但与毒性无关。MTX的初始剂量越大(25毫克对15毫克),疗效越好,因疗效不佳而增加剂量的情况越少,因缓解率较高而减少剂量的情况越多。此外,胃肠道毒性也有增加的趋势。比较MTX的不同给药途径,皮下注射MTX与口服MTX(77%)相比,ACR20反应(85%)在统计学上更高(P < 0.05)。7.5毫克至15毫克的加速和常规起始MTX方案的临床疗效和安全性相当,每两周剂量增加2.5毫克。对于MTX初始治疗失败的RA患者,逐步增加MTX剂量的ACR20应答率和持续缓解率均高于其他策略。在 MTX 无应答者中,优化使用 SC MTX 与 ACR20 和 ACR50 率的提高有关,且各组间的毒性相似。在早期RA患者亚组中,SC MTX的ACR20反应率高于口服MTX,强化口服方法的持续缓解率更高,平均缓解时间更短,临床疾病活动度指标也优于传统治疗方法。尽管其他MTX起始方案的临床有效性和安全性不相上下,但较高起始剂量的MTX和初始皮下注射MTX在改善ACR20反应方面表现更好。本范围界定综述提供了证据,支持在断定MTX治疗在RA患者中失败之前,从途径和剂量方面优化MTX治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Rheumatology
BMC Rheumatology Medicine-Rheumatology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Association between osteoprotegerin and RANKL single nucleotide polymorphisms and destructive rhinosinusitis in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Thermographic and ultrasound assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: can thermography detect subclinical synovitis at the wrist? Rheumatoid arthritis and COVID-19 outcomes: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Classification of salivary gland biopsies in Sjögren's syndrome by a convolutional neural network using an auto-machine learning platform. Prevalence of co-existing autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases in vitiligo: a survey-based study from Egypt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1