Chande Nilesh, Wang Yongjun, MacDonald John K, McDonald John W D
London Health Sciences Centre - Victoria Hospital, Room E6-321A, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON, Canada, N6A 5W9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 27;2014(8):CD006618. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006618.pub3.
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Corticosteroids and 5-aminosalicylates are the most commonly used therapies. However, many patients require immunosuppressive therapy for steroid-refractory and steroid-dependent disease. Methotrexate is a medication that is effective for treating a variety of inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease. This review was performed to determine the effectiveness of methotrexate treatment in UC patients. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate for induction of remission in patients with UC.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register were searched from from inception to June 26, 2014. Study references and review papers were also searched for additional trials. Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were searched to identify research published in abstract form only.
Randomized controlled trials comparing methotrexate with placebo or an active comparator in patients with active ulcerative colitis were considered for inclusion.
Two authors independently reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the total number of patients randomized (intention-to-treat analysis). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
Two studies (n = 101 patients) were included in the review. One study (n = 67) compared oral methotrexate 12.5 mg/week) to placebo. The other study (n = 34) compared oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) to 6-mercaptopurine (1.5 mg/kg/day) and 5-aminosalicylic acid (3 g/day). The placebo-controlled study was judged to be at low risk of bias. The other study was judged to be at high risk of bias due to an open-label design. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical remission rates between methotrexate and placebo patients. Forty-seven per cent (14/30) of methotrexate patients achieved clinical remission and complete withdrawal from steroids during the study period compared to 49% (18/37) of placebo patients (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.59. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (32 events). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids in the study comparing oral methotrexate to 6-mercaptopurine and 5-aminosalicylic acid. At 30 weeks, 58% (7/12) of methotrexate patients achieved clinical remission and withdrawal from steroids compared to 79% (11/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.29) and 25% of 5-aminosalicylic acid patients (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.64 to 8.49). GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence was very low due to very sparse data (18 and 9 events respectively) and and high risk of bias. In the placebo-controlled trial two patients (7%) were withdrawn from the methotrexate group due to adverse events (leucopenia, migraine) compared to one patient (3%) who had a rash in the placebo group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 25.91). Adverse events experienced by methotrexate patients in the active comparator study included nausea and dyspepsia, mild alopecia, mild increase in aspartate aminotransferase levels, peritoneal abscess, hypoalbuminemia, severe rash and atypical pneumonia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although methotrexate was well-tolerated, the studies showed no benefit for methotrexate over placebo or active comparators. The results for efficacy outcomes between methotrexate and placebo, methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate and 5-aminosalicylic acid were uncertain. Whether a higher dose or parenteral administration would be effective for induction therapy is unknown. At present there is no evidence supporting the use of methotrexate for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A trial in which larger numbers of patients receive a higher dose of oral methotrexate should be considered. Currently there are two large ongoing placebo-controlled trials (METEOR and MERIT-UC) assessing the efficacy and safety of intramuscular or subcutaneous methotrexate in patients with active UC which may help resolve the evidence supporting the use of methotrexate as therapy for active of ulcerative colitis.
溃疡性结肠炎(UC)是一种慢性炎症性肠病。皮质类固醇和5-氨基水杨酸是最常用的治疗方法。然而,许多患者因激素难治性和激素依赖性疾病需要免疫抑制治疗。甲氨蝶呤是一种对治疗包括克罗恩病在内的多种炎症性疾病有效的药物。本综述旨在确定甲氨蝶呤治疗UC患者的有效性。本综述是对先前发表的Cochrane综述的更新。
评估甲氨蝶呤诱导UC患者缓解的疗效和安全性。
检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL以及Cochrane IBD/FBD小组专门的试验注册库,检索时间从建库至2014年6月26日。还检索了研究参考文献和综述论文以寻找其他试验。检索了主要胃肠病学会议的摘要以识别仅以摘要形式发表的研究。
纳入比较甲氨蝶呤与安慰剂或活性对照物治疗活动期溃疡性结肠炎患者的随机对照试验。
两位作者独立审查研究的合格性,提取数据并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。主要结局指标是达到临床缓解并按照研究定义停用类固醇的患者比例,以随机分组患者总数的百分比表示(意向性分析)。我们计算了二分结局的风险比(RR)和相应的95%置信区间(95%CI)。使用GRADE标准评估支持主要结局的证据的总体质量。
本综述纳入了两项研究(n = 101例患者)。一项研究(n = 67)比较了口服甲氨蝶呤(12.5mg/周)与安慰剂。另一项研究(n = 34)比较了口服甲氨蝶呤(15mg/周)与6-巯基嘌呤(1.5mg/kg/天)和5-氨基水杨酸(3g/天)。安慰剂对照研究被判定为低偏倚风险。另一项研究由于开放标签设计被判定为高偏倚风险。甲氨蝶呤组和安慰剂组患者的临床缓解率无统计学显著差异。在研究期间,47%(14/30)的甲氨蝶呤患者实现了临床缓解并完全停用类固醇,而安慰剂组为49%(18/37)(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.58至1.59)。GRADE分析表明,由于数据非常稀少(32个事件),支持这一结局的证据总体质量较低。在比较口服甲氨蝶呤与6-巯基嘌呤和5-氨基水杨酸的研究中,实现临床缓解并停用类固醇的患者比例无统计学显著差异。在30周时,58%(7/12)的甲氨蝶呤患者实现了临床缓解并停用类固醇,而6-巯基嘌呤组为79%(11/14)(RR 0.74,95%CI 0.43至1.29),5-氨基水杨酸组为25%(RR 2.33,95%CI 0.64至8.49)。GRADE分析表明,由于数据非常稀少(分别为18和9个事件)以及高偏倚风险,证据的总体质量非常低。在安慰剂对照试验中,甲氨蝶呤组有两名患者(7%)因不良事件(白细胞减少、偏头痛)退出,而安慰剂组有一名患者(3%)出现皮疹(RR 2.47,95%CI 0.23至25.91)。活性对照研究中甲氨蝶呤患者经历的不良事件包括恶心、消化不良、轻度脱发、天冬氨酸转氨酶水平轻度升高、腹腔脓肿、低白蛋白血症、严重皮疹和非典型肺炎。
尽管甲氨蝶呤耐受性良好,但研究表明甲氨蝶呤并不比安慰剂或活性对照物更具优势。甲氨蝶呤与安慰剂、甲氨蝶呤与6-巯基嘌呤以及甲氨蝶呤与5-氨基水杨酸之间疗效结局的结果尚不确定。更高剂量或胃肠外给药是否对诱导治疗有效尚不清楚。目前没有证据支持使用甲氨蝶呤诱导活动期溃疡性结肠炎缓解。应考虑进行一项试验,让更多患者接受更高剂量的口服甲氨蝶呤。目前有两项正在进行的大型安慰剂对照试验(METEOR和MERIT-UC)评估肌肉注射或皮下注射甲氨蝶呤治疗活动期UC患者的疗效和安全性,这可能有助于解决支持使用甲氨蝶呤治疗活动期溃疡性结肠炎的证据问题。