4.4 Review

Optimizing methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic literature review

期刊

JOINT BONE SPINE
卷 78, 期 6, 页码 587-592

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.01.010

关键词

Rheumatoid arthritis; Methotrexate; Treatment strategy; Dosage; Route of administration; Systematic literature review

资金

  1. Abbott France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the means of optimizing methotrexate therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in daily clinical practice, based on a systematic literature review. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and reviewing communications to ACR and EULAR meetings for studies on methotrexate starting dosages, dosage increment sizes and intervals, maximum dosages, and routes of administration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. We used an appropriate scoring system to assess the methodological quality of each selected study. Results: We identified 519 studies of which 11 were selected based on the titles and abstracts then on the full-length articles. Methotrexate was optimally effective when started in a high dosage (more than 10 mg/week orally) that was subsequently increased by 5 mg/month up to 25-30 mg/week, 1 with appropriate adjustments based on clinical disease activity and tolerance of each patient. For a given methotrexate dosage, parenteral administration was more effective and produced fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects than oral administration. Conclusion: The information supplied by this systematic review support higher starting dosage, an intensive dosage increase schedule and recourse to parenteral administration in case of unresponsiveness or intolerance to oral methotrexate. They should improve the management of patients given methotrexate therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of the Societe Francaise de Rhumatologie.

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

4.4
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