4.5 Review

Efficacy of Methotrexate in Ulcerative Colitis: Failure or Promise

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1421-1430

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1002/ibd.21246

关键词

methotrexate; ulcerative colitis; inflammatory bowel disease

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1U34DK084511-01]
  2. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Low-dose methotrexate is a widely used and efficacious therapy in chronic inflammatory disorders such as psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. Prospective randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of parenteral methotrexate in Crohn's disease (CD). We performed a systematic review of the efficacy of methotrexate in ulcerative colitis (UC) and discuss the results in the context of the known pharmacokinetics and adverse events of methotrexate therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases and other inflammatory conditions. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. All publications describing patients with UC treated with methotrexate were included. Results: We identified 12 studies or retrospective case series and 5 meeting abstracts that met the inclusion criteria. Only I study reported a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial using methotrexate at a dose of 12.5 mg orally with no significant clinical benefit. However, the majority of uncontrolled retrospective analyses suggest a clinical response to methotrexate therapy in a range of 30%-80% when the drug is applied by parenteral route in doses between 20-25 mg. Conclusions: The only randomized controlled trial of methotrexate in UC employed oral dosing and doses lower than those shown to be effective in CD and did not demonstrate efficacy, whereas uncontrolled, retrospective studies using doses and routes of administration similar to those employed in CD suggest benefit. Well-designed, prospective, placebo-controlled trials of methotrexate in UC are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据