-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Female; Ustekinumab; Methotrexate; Infliximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Biological Products
PubMed: 37436070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub6 -
Clinical Rheumatology Sep 2023Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality... (Review)
Review
Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sulfasalazine; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37291382
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the...
OBJECTIVE
New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA.
METHODS
Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined.
RESULTS
The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed.
CONCLUSION
These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Methotrexate; Biological Products
PubMed: 38499325
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225531 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Jul 2023Acute exacerbation (AE) is a devastating complication of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and leads to high mortality. This study aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Acute exacerbation (AE) is a devastating complication of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and leads to high mortality. This study aimed to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of acute exacerbation of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (AE-RA-ILD).
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Medline were searched through 8 February 2023. Two independent researchers selected eligible articles and extracted available data. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of studies used for meta-analysis. The incidence and prognosis of AE-RA-ILD were investigated. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated to explore the risk factors of AE in RA-ILD.
RESULTS
Twenty-one of 1,589 articles were eligible. A total of 385 patients with AE-RA-ILD, of whom 53.5% were male, were included. The frequency of AE in patients with RA-ILD ranged from 6.3 to 55.6%. The 1-year and 5-year AE incidences were 2.6-11.1% and 11-29.4%, respectively. The all-cause mortality rate of AE-RA-ILD was 12.6-27.9% at 30 days and 16.7-48.3% at 90 days. Age at RA diagnosis (WMD: 3.61, 95% CI: 0.22-7.01), male sex (OR: 1.60, 95% CI:1.16-2.21), smoking (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.08-2.08), lower forced vital capacity predicted (FVC%; WMD: -8.63, 95% CI: -14.68 to - 2.58), and definite usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.15-3.22) were the risk factors of AE-RA-ILD. Moreover, the use of corticosteroids, methotrexate, and biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, was not associated with AE-RA-ILD.
CONCLUSION
AE-RA-ILD was not rare and had a poor prognosis. Age at RA diagnosis, male sex, smoking, lower FVC%, and definite UIP pattern increased the risk of AE-RA-ILD. The use of medications, especially methotrexate and biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, may not be related to AE-RA-ILD.
REGISTRATION
CRD42023396772.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Incidence; Methotrexate; Risk Factors; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Prognosis; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Antirheumatic Agents
PubMed: 37434169
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-023-02532-2 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2023The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of systemic nonsteroidal immunomodulators (SNSI) for oral lichen planus (OLP) treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of systemic nonsteroidal immunomodulators (SNSI) for oral lichen planus (OLP) treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021243524). Consulted databases were Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria was as follows: clinical trials, case series, prospective, and retrospective studies conducted with participants presenting OLP of any sex and age.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected, assessing 9 different SNSI: methotrexate, dapsone, levamisole, hydroxychloroquine, thalidomide, metronidazole, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and colchicine. Methotrexate and dapsone were the drugs with the best evidence among the options included, regarding number and quality of studies. Methotrexate resulted in significant improvement in the clinical condition and remission of symptoms, ranging between 63 and 93% of cases. Dapsone presented a similar effect to the use of topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus CONCLUSION: Among SNSI therapeutic options, methotrexate, and dapsone showed promising efficacy and safety. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials are still needed.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
SNSI have been used in the treatment of recalcitrant OLP; however, so far, it is not clear which are the best options. This scoping review highlights the potential use of methotrexate and dapsone.
Topics: Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Methotrexate; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Immunologic Factors; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Dapsone
PubMed: 37921879
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05357-9 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Sep 2023Ectopic pregnancy is an important health condition which affects up to 1 in 100 women. Women who present with mild symptoms and low serum human chorionic gonadotrophin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ectopic pregnancy is an important health condition which affects up to 1 in 100 women. Women who present with mild symptoms and low serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) are often treated with methotrexate (MTX), but expectant management with close monitoring is a feasible alternative. Studies comparing the two treatments have not shown a statistically significant difference in uneventful resolution of ectopic pregnancy, but these studies were too small to define whether certain subgroups could benefit more from either treatment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of randomized controlled trials comparing systemic MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy and low hCG (<2000 IU/L). A one-stage IPD-MA was performed to assess overall treatment effects of MTX and expectant management to generate a pooled intervention effect. Subgroup analyses and exploratory multivariable analyses were undertaken according to baseline serum hCG and progesterone levels. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as resolution of clinical symptoms and decline in level of serum hCG to <20 IU/L, or a negative urine pregnancy test by the initial intervention strategy, without any additional treatment. Secondary outcomes were need for blood transfusion, surgical intervention, additional MTX side-effects and hCG resolution times.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO: CRD42021214093.
RESULTS
1547 studies reviewed and 821 remained after duplicates removed. Five studies screened for eligibility and three IPD requested. Two randomized controlled trials supplied IPD, leading to 153 participants for analysis. Treatment success rate was 65/82 (79.3%) after MTX and 48/70 (68.6%) after expectant management (IPD risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.40). Surgical intervention rates were not significantly different: 8/82 (9.8%) vs 13/70 (18.6%) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23-1.14). Mean time to success was 19.7 days (95% CI 17.4-22.3) after MTX and 21.2 days (95% CI 17.8-25.2) after expectant management (P = 0.25). MTX specific side-effects were reported in 33 MTX compared to four in the expectant group.
CONCLUSIONS
Our IPD-MA showed no statistically significant difference in treatment efficacy between MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy with low hCG. Initial expectant management could be the preferred strategy due to fewer side-effects.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Methotrexate; Watchful Waiting; Pregnancy, Tubal; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37345445
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14617 -
PloS One 2023Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective treatment for RA, the effects that bDMARDs have on integumentary, cardiac, and immune systems and the high costs associated with these treatments, make that mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies (MSCs) for RA are being considered potential treatment methods. This work analyses the performance in safety and efficacy terms of MSCs techniques.
METHODS AND FINDING
A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases from inception to October 28, 2022. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized controlled trial (non-RCTs), including 358 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis; only RCTs were eligible for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Meta-analysis of adverse events (AE) in RCTs showed no significant differences in the incidence of AE in the MSCs group compared to the control group (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.58; I2 = 58.80%). The pooled Risk ratio for non-serious and serious adverse events showed no statistical difference between intervention and control groups concerning the incidence of non-serious and serious adverse events (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.51; I2 = 58.62%) and (Risk ratio: 1.10; 95% CI, 0.15 to 7.97; I2 = 0.0%) respectively. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Disease Activity Score (DAS28) decreased in agreement with the decreasing values of C-reactive protein (CRP) and Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Additionally, a trend toward clinical efficacy was observed; however, this improvement was not shown in the studies after 12 months of follow-up without continuous treatment administration.
CONCLUSION
This Systematic review and meta-analysis showed a favorable safety profile, without life-threatening events in subjects with RA, and a trend toward clinical efficacy that must be confirmed through high-quality RCTs, considerable sample size, and extended follow-up in subjects with RA.
Topics: Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Methotrexate; Treatment Outcome; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37498842
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284828 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in childhood. Methotrexate has broad immunomodulatory properties and is the most commonly used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in childhood. Methotrexate has broad immunomodulatory properties and is the most commonly used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). This is an update of a 2001 Cochrane review. It supports a living guideline for children and young people with JIA.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Australian JIA Living Guideline Working Group created a registry of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of JIA by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. The date of the most recent search of online databases was 1 February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for RCTs that compared methotrexate with placebo, no treatment, or another DMARD (with or without concomitant therapies) in children and young people (aged up to 18 years) with JIA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The main comparison was methotrexate versus placebo. Our outcomes were treatment response, sustained clinically inactive disease, function, pain, participant global assessment of well-being, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included RCTs to five (575 participants). Three trials evaluated oral methotrexate versus placebo, one evaluated methotrexate plus intra-articular glucocorticoid (IAGC) therapy versus IAGC therapy alone, and one evaluated methotrexate versus leflunomide. Doses of methotrexate ranged from 5 mg/m/week to 15 mg/m/week in four trials, and participants in the methotrexate group of the remaining trial received 0.5 mg/kg/week. Trial size varied from 31 to 226 participants. The average age of participants ranged from four to 10 years. Most participants were females and most had nonsystemic JIA. The study that evaluated methotrexate plus IAGC therapy versus IAGC therapy alone recruited children and young people with the oligoarticular disease subtype of JIA. Two placebo-controlled trials and the trial of methotrexate versus leflunomide were adequately randomised and blinded, and likely not susceptible to important biases. One placebo-controlled trial may have been susceptible to selection bias due to lack of adequate reporting of randomisation methods. The trial investigating the addition of methotrexate to IAGC therapy was susceptible to performance and detection biases. Methotrexate versus placebo Methotrexate compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people who achieve treatment response up to six months (absolute difference of 163 more per 1000 people; risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.31; I = 0%; 3 trials, 328 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, methotrexate compared with placebo may have little or no effect on pain as measured on an increasing scale of 0 to 100 (mean difference (MD) -1.10 points, 95% CI -9.09 to 6.88; 1 trial, 114 participants), improvement in participant global assessment of well-being (absolute difference of 92 more per 1000 people; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.72; 1 trial, 176 participants), occurrence of serious adverse events (absolute difference of 5 fewer per 1000 people; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.97; 3 trials, 328 participants), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.60 to 19.79; 3 trials, 328 participants) up to six months. We could not estimate the absolute difference for withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the placebo group. All outcomes were reported within six months of randomisation. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low for all outcomes due to indirectness (suboptimal dosing of methotrexate and diverse outcome measures) and imprecision (few participants and low event rates). No trials reported function or the number of participants with sustained clinically inactive disease. Serious adverse events included liver derangement, abdominal pain, and inadvertent overdose. Methotrexate plus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy versus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy alone Methotrexate plus IAGC therapy compared with IAGC therapy alone may have little or no effect on the probability of sustained clinically inactive disease or the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to 12 months in children and young people with the oligoarticular subtype of JIA (low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate the absolute difference in withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the control group. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the interventions in the risk of severe adverse events, because none were reported. The study did not report treatment response, function, pain, or participant global assessment of well-being. Methotrexate versus an alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drug Methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on the probability of treatment response or on function, participant global assessment of well-being, risk of serious adverse events, and rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to four months. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low due to imprecision. The study did not report pain or sustained clinically inactive disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral methotrexate (5 mg/m/week to 15 mg/m/week) compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people achieving treatment response but may have little or no effect on pain or participant global assessment of well-being. Oral methotrexate plus IAGC injections compared to IAGC injections alone may have little or no effect on the likelihood of sustained clinically inactive disease among children and young people with oligoarticular JIA. Similarly, methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on treatment response, function, and participant global assessment of well-being. Serious adverse events due to methotrexate appear to be rare. We will update this review as new evidence becomes available to inform the living guideline.
Topics: Child; Female; Humans; Adolescent; Aged; Child, Preschool; Male; Methotrexate; Arthritis, Juvenile; Leflunomide; Australia; Antirheumatic Agents; Glucocorticoids; Pain
PubMed: 38334147
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003129.pub2 -
Acta Neurologica Belgica Oct 2023Current myasthenia gravis guidelines recommend the use of azathioprine as first-line steroid sparing agent. However, due to its high cost, compliance to azathioprine is... (Review)
Review
Current myasthenia gravis guidelines recommend the use of azathioprine as first-line steroid sparing agent. However, due to its high cost, compliance to azathioprine is low in developing countries. To determine the efficacy and safety of the cheaper methotrexate as an alternative immunosuppressant, Medline/Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases and references were searched for clinical trials and observational studies using the search terms: "Myasthenia OR Myasthenia Gravis OR anti AchR antibody positive Myasthenia Gravis OR anti-MuSK antibody Myasthenia Gravis OR MG" AND "Methotrexate". Of 78 possible articles, only 4 were selected using the following eligibility criteria: population: generalized MG patients; intervention: methotrexate; and outcome: effectiveness, steroid sparing efficacy and adverse effects. Two clinical trials and one observational study noted improvement in different MG outcomes in patients given methotrexate. While one randomized controlled clinical trial concluded that methotrexate has no steroid sparing benefit, a single blinded clinical trial established that methotrexate was a better steroid sparing agent than azathioprine starting at 10th month of use. Adverse effects were rare with non-specific pain and elevated transaminases as the most common complaints. Based on available evidence, MTX may be a safe and effective alternative to AZA as steroid sparing agent in developing countries.
Topics: Humans; Methotrexate; Azathioprine; Immunosuppressive Agents; Myasthenia Gravis; Prednisone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36967437
DOI: 10.1007/s13760-023-02242-w -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2024Methotrexate is an off-label therapy for atopic dermatitis. A lack of consensus on dosing regimens poses a risk of underdosing and ineffective treatment or overdosing... (Review)
Review
Methotrexate is an off-label therapy for atopic dermatitis. A lack of consensus on dosing regimens poses a risk of underdosing and ineffective treatment or overdosing and increased risk of side effects. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on dosing regimens.A literature search was conducted, screening all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and guidelines published up to 6 July 2023, in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases.Five RCTs and 21 guidelines were included. RCTs compared methotrexate with other treatments rather than different methotrexate dosing regimens. The start and maintenance doses in RCTs varied between 7.5-15 mg/week and 14.5-25 mg/week, respectively. Despite varied dosing, all RCTs demonstrated efficacy in improving atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms. Guidelines exhibited substantial heterogeneity but predominantly proposed starting doses of 5-15 mg/week for adults and 10-15 mg/m/week for children. Maintenance doses suggested were 7.5-25 mg/week for adults and 0.2-0.7 mg/kg/week for children. One guideline suggested a test dose and nearly half advised folic acid supplementation.This systematic review highlights the lack of methotrexate dosing guidelines for atopic dermatitis. It identifies commonly recommended and utilized dosing regimens, serving as a valuable resource for clinicians prescribing methotrexate off-label and providing input for an upcoming consensus study.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Methotrexate; Dermatitis, Atopic
PubMed: 38124505
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2292962