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