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.
BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.
OBJECTIVES: To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.
METHODS: We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
MAIN RESULTS: 158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine (“triple therapy”), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.
OBJETIVOS: Este estudio se realizó para determinar si subcutánea (SC) de metotrexato (MTX) hace un mejor rendimiento en la biodisponibilidad, eficacia clínica, los efectos secundarios ocurrencia, y el fracaso del tratamiento en el tratamiento de la AR en comparación con MTX oral.
MÉTODOS: Las bases de datos PubMed, Web of Science, Embase y Cochrane Library se realizaron búsquedas sistemáticas. Siete estudios con 1335 pacientes fueron elegibles para la extracción de datos y meta-análisis. Los resultados del meta-análisis se presentaron como diferencia de medias (DM) o ración impar (OR) con un intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC del 95%).
RESULTADOS: Meta-análisis mostraron que el MTX SC puede aumentar significativamente el AUC 0-t (área bajo la curva de concentración plasmática de la administración a durar concentración observada en el tiempo t) (MD = 506,84; IC del 95%: 80,80 a 932,89), acortar el tiempo de alcanzar la concentración máxima observada (Tmáx) (MD = -0.13; IC del 95%: -0,25 a la -0.01) y la eliminación terminal aparente vida media (t (1/2)) (MD = -0,39; IC del 95%: - IC del 95%; 0,70 a -0,08), reducir la incidencia de náuseas (OR = 0,53: 0,28 a 0,97) y diarrea (OR = 0,43; IC del 95%: 0,20 a 0,95), mejorar la American College of Rheumatology criterios para el 20% mejoría (ACR20) (OR = 1,68; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 2,61) y ACR70 (OR = 1,52; IC del 95%: 1.2 a 2.26), y aliviar el dolor (MD = -0,65; IC del 95%: -0,93 a -0,37) en comparación con MTX oral. Sin embargo, las diferencias en la concentración plasmática máxima (Cmáx), la aparición de dolor de cabeza, vómitos y dispepsia, ACR50, el fracaso del tratamiento no fueron significativas entre los dos grupos.
CONCLUSIÓN: vía SC de MTX a dosis altas hizo un mejor rendimiento en la mejora de la biodisponibilidad y la eficacia clínica, la reducción de los trastornos GI, pero no puede disminuir el fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la administración oral de MTX.
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.
