Braun J, Kästner P, Flaxenberg P, Währisch J, Hanke P, Demary W, von Hinüber U, Rockwitz K, Heitz W, Pichlmeier U, Guimbal-Schmolck C, Brandt A
Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany.
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan;58(1):73-81. doi: 10.1002/art.23144.
To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus oral administration of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
MTX-naive patients with active RA (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints >or= 4) were eligible for the study if they had not previously taken biologic agents and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for 2 weeks prior to randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week of MTX either orally (2 7.5-mg tablets plus a dummy prefilled syringe; n=187 patients) or SC (prefilled syringe containing 10 mg/ml plus 2 dummy tablets; n=188 patients) for 24 weeks. At week 16, patients who did not meet the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) were switched from 15 mg of oral MTX to 15 mg of SC MTX and from 15 mg of SC MTX to 20 mg of SC MTX for the remaining 8 weeks, still in a blinded manner. The primary outcome was an ACR20 response at 24 weeks.
At week 24, significantly more patients treated with SC MTX than with oral MTX showed ACR20 (78% versus 70%) and ACR70 (41% versus 33%) responses. Patients with a disease duration >or= 12 months had even higher ACR20 response rates (89% for SC administration and 63% for oral). In 52 of the ACR20 nonresponders (14%), treatment was switched at week 16. Changing from oral to SC MTX and from 15 mg to 20 mg of SC MTX resulted in 30% and 23% ACR20 response rates, respectively, in these patients. MTX was well tolerated. The rate of adverse events was similar in all groups.
This 6-month prospective, randomized, controlled trial is the first to examine oral versus SC administration of MTX. We found that SC administration was significantly more effective than oral administration of the same MTX dosage. There was no difference in tolerability.
比较皮下注射(SC)与口服甲氨蝶呤(MTX)治疗活动期类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的疗效和安全性。
初治的活动期RA患者(28个关节疾病活动评分≥4),若此前未使用过生物制剂且在随机分组前2周内未服用过改善病情抗风湿药物,则符合本研究条件。患者被随机分配接受每周15mg的MTX,口服组(2片7.5mg片剂加1支模拟预充式注射器;n = 187例患者)或皮下注射组(含10mg/ml的预充式注射器加两片模拟片剂;n = 188例患者),疗程24周。在第16周时,未达到美国风湿病学会20%改善标准(ACR20)的患者,从口服15mg MTX改为皮下注射15mg MTX,或从皮下注射15mg MTX改为皮下注射20mg MTX,持续剩余8周,仍采用盲法。主要结局为24周时的ACR20反应。
在第24周时,皮下注射MTX治疗的患者中显示出ACR20(78%对70%)和ACR70(41%对33%)反应的患者显著多于口服MTX治疗的患者。病程≥12个月的患者ACR20反应率更高(皮下注射组为89%,口服组为63%)。在52例未达到ACR20反应的患者中(14%),在第16周时更换了治疗方案。从口服改为皮下注射MTX以及从皮下注射15mg改为20mg MTX的患者,ACR20反应率分别为30%和23%。MTX耐受性良好。所有组不良事件发生率相似。
这项为期6个月的前瞻性、随机、对照试验是首个比较口服与皮下注射MTX的研究。我们发现相同剂量的MTX皮下注射比口服显著更有效。耐受性方面无差异。