4.7 Review

Methotrexate use and risk of lung disease in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease: systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 350, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h1269

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the relative risk of pulmonary disease among patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease treated with methotrexate. DATA SOURCES PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Embase to 9 January 2014. Study selection Double blind randomised controlled trials of methotrexate versus placebo or active comparator agents in adults with psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease. Studies with fewer than 50 participants or of less than 12 weeks' duration were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS Two investigators independently searched both databases. All authors reviewed selected studies. We compared relative risk differences using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects method to assess total respiratory adverse events, infectious respiratory adverse events, non-infectious respiratory adverse events, interstitial lung disease, and death. RESULTS Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, six with placebo as the comparator. Heterogeneity across the studies was not significant (I-2=0%), allowing combination of trial results. 504 respiratory adverse events were documented in 1630 participants. Methotrexate was not associated with an increased risk of adverse respiratory events (relative risk 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.17), respiratory infections (1.02, 0.88 to 1.19), or non-infectious respiratory events (1.07, 0.58 to 1.96). No pulmonary deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS Findings suggested that there was no increased risk of lung disease in methotrexate treated patients with non-malignant inflammatory diseases. Given the limitations of the study, however, we cannot exclude a small but clinically important risk.

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

4.7
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