Suppr超能文献

口服与静脉注射甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Comparison of oral versus parenteral methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2019 Sep 6;14(9):e0221823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221823. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Studies suggest that parenteral MTX may be more efficacious than the oral form at equivalent doses for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of oral versus parenteral MTX in RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were systematically searched from inception to June 8th 2017 and reviewed following PRISMA 2009 guidelines, by two independent reviewers. To be included, trials had to study adults with RA randomized to the same dose of either oral or parenteral MTX. The primary endpoint was ACR20 at 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis results were used when possible. Data from direct comparisons between oral and parenteral methotrexate quantitatively analyzed using maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis. Relative treatment effects were generated as an odds ratio [OR] (OR>1 indicated a benefit for parenteral therapy).

RESULTS

The search yielded 357 papers or abstracts. After review of titles or abstracts and full text papers, we found 4 that met inclusion criteria with 703 patients randomized. Dose of MTX started at 15mg/week and increased up to 25mg/week. The summary OR for achieving ACR20 using parenteral vs. oral MTX was 3.02 (95% CI 1.41, 6.46), with no significant difference in the risk for all adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral MTX therapy had significantly higher odds than oral MTX of achieving reduction in disease activity. We propose that parenteral MTX is more effective than weekly oral MTX; its widespread use may lead to better control of disease and a decrease in demand for biologic agents.

摘要

目的

研究表明,在等效剂量下,与口服甲氨蝶呤相比,注射用甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎可能更有效。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以比较类风湿关节炎患者口服与注射用甲氨蝶呤的疗效。

方法

系统检索了 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Embase 数据库,检索时间从建库至 2017 年 6 月 8 日,并按照 PRISMA 2009 指南进行了综述,由两名独立的评审员进行。纳入的试验必须是研究成年人类风湿关节炎患者,随机分为相同剂量的口服或注射用甲氨蝶呤。主要终点为 6 个月时 ACR20。当可能时,使用意向治疗分析结果。使用最大似然随机效应荟萃分析对口服和注射用甲氨蝶呤之间的直接比较数据进行定量分析。相对治疗效果表示为优势比(OR)(OR>1 表示注射治疗有益)。

结果

搜索结果得到 357 篇论文或摘要。经过标题或摘要以及全文论文的审查,我们发现有 4 项研究符合纳入标准,共纳入 703 例患者随机分组。甲氨蝶呤的起始剂量为 15mg/周,增加至 25mg/周。与口服甲氨蝶呤相比,使用注射用甲氨蝶呤达到 ACR20 的汇总 OR 为 3.02(95%可信区间 1.41,6.46),两组不良反应的风险无显著差异。

结论

与口服甲氨蝶呤相比,注射用甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎患者达到疾病活动度降低的可能性更高。我们提出,注射用甲氨蝶呤比每周口服甲氨蝶呤更有效;其广泛应用可能会更好地控制疾病,减少对生物制剂的需求。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d37d/6731021/e655f2b9a70f/pone.0221823.g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of oral versus parenteral methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis.
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 6;14(9):e0221823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221823. eCollection 2019.
4
Oral Methotrexate in split dose weekly versus oral or parenteral Methotrexate once weekly in Rheumatoid Arthritis: a short-term study.
Int J Rheum Dis. 2018 May;21(5):1010-1017. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12910. Epub 2016 Jul 26.
5
Methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: optimizing therapy among different formulations. Current and emerging paradigms.
Clin Ther. 2014 Mar 1;36(3):427-35. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.01.014. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
10

引用本文的文献

1
Methotrexate in the management of Crohn's disease: A practice survey of gastroenterologists in France.
World J Gastroenterol. 2025 Sep 7;31(33):108872. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i33.108872.
4
International Survey to Evaluate Current Options for Subcutaneous Injection of Methotrexate (MTX) and a New Button-Free MTX Autoinjector.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024 Mar 6;18:579-590. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S440818. eCollection 2024.
6
Oral Versus Subcutaneous Methotrexate in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disorders: an Update of the Current Literature.
Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2023 Dec;25(12):276-284. doi: 10.1007/s11926-023-01116-7. Epub 2023 Sep 28.
7
Difficult to treat psoriatic arthritis - how should we manage?
Clin Rheumatol. 2023 Sep;42(9):2251-2265. doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06605-9. Epub 2023 Apr 25.
9
Methotrexate; a trustworthy answer to an inflammatory response in osteoarthritis.
J Res Med Sci. 2022 Sep 27;27:66. doi: 10.4103/jrms.jrms_765_21. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

2
Oral to subcutaneous methotrexate dose-conversion strategy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Rheumatol Int. 2017 Feb;37(2):213-218. doi: 10.1007/s00296-016-3621-1. Epub 2016 Dec 23.
3
2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76(6):948-959. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210602. Epub 2016 Dec 15.
5
Oral Methotrexate in split dose weekly versus oral or parenteral Methotrexate once weekly in Rheumatoid Arthritis: a short-term study.
Int J Rheum Dis. 2018 May;21(5):1010-1017. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12910. Epub 2016 Jul 26.
6
Methotrexate dosage as a source of bias in biological trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Sep;75(9):1595-8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209383. Epub 2016 Apr 18.
8
2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jan;68(1):1-26. doi: 10.1002/art.39480. Epub 2015 Nov 6.
9
The comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75(6):1003-8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206504. Epub 2015 May 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验