Vena Gino Antonio, Cassano Nicoletta, Iannone Florenzo
Dermatology and Venereology Private Practice, Bari.
Dermatology and Venereology Private Practice, Barletta.
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018 Jan 9;14:105-116. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S154745. eCollection 2018.
Methotrexate (MTX) is one of the mainstays of treatment for several immune-mediated inflammatory joint and skin diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Oral MTX has been used for the treatment of such diseases for decades for many reasons. There is, however, a relevant interpatient variability of clinical and safety outcomes that can also be related to differences in patients' individual pharmacogenomic profile. Orally administered MTX has been found to have a saturable intestinal absorption and nonlinear pharmacokinetics, with significant consequences on drug bioavailability and clinical efficacy. The current evidence shows that parenterally administered MTX results in rapid and complete absorption, higher serum levels, and less variable exposure than oral dosing. The use of parenteral MTX, particularly when administered as a subcutaneous (SC) injection, has recently raised great interest in order to overcome the limitations of oral MTX. The effectiveness and safety of SC MTX have mostly been assessed in rheumatological settings, especially in patients with RA. There are only a limited number of data on SC MTX in juvenile idiopathic arthritis and even fewer in psoriatic disease. Various clinical experiences have suggested that SC MTX is more effective than oral MTX and may provide significant benefit even in patients in whom oral MTX proved to be inadequate. The increased efficacy of SC MTX resulting from higher drug exposure compared with oral MTX has been associated with a similar safety profile and in various reports even with a lower frequency of gastrointestinal complaints. The aim of this article was to review the available literature data on SC MTX treatment of inflammatory arthritis, with special emphasis on RA and psoriasis, examining differences with oral MTX treatment. A brief mention of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic features and pharmacoeconomic considerations is also given.
甲氨蝶呤(MTX)是多种免疫介导的炎性关节和皮肤疾病治疗的主要药物之一,尤其是类风湿关节炎(RA)和中重度银屑病。口服MTX因多种原因已用于此类疾病的治疗数十年。然而,临床和安全性结果在患者之间存在显著差异,这也可能与患者个体药物基因组特征的差异有关。已发现口服MTX具有饱和性肠道吸收和非线性药代动力学,对药物生物利用度和临床疗效有重大影响。目前的证据表明,与口服给药相比,胃肠外给药的MTX吸收迅速且完全,血清水平更高,暴露变异性更小。为了克服口服MTX的局限性,胃肠外MTX的使用,尤其是皮下(SC)注射给药,最近引起了极大的关注。SC MTX的有效性和安全性大多在风湿病学环境中进行评估,尤其是在RA患者中。关于SC MTX在幼年特发性关节炎中的数据有限,在银屑病中的数据更少。各种临床经验表明,SC MTX比口服MTX更有效,即使在口服MTX疗效不佳的患者中也可能带来显著益处。与口服MTX相比,SC MTX因更高的药物暴露而提高的疗效与相似的安全性相关,在各种报告中甚至胃肠道不适的发生率更低。本文的目的是综述关于SC MTX治疗炎性关节炎的现有文献数据,特别强调RA和银屑病,同时考察与口服MTX治疗的差异。还简要提及了药代动力学、药效学特征和药物经济学考量。