4.7 Article

A randomised clinical trial of methotrexate points to possible efficacy and adaptive immune dysfunction in psychosis

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-020-01095-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI)
  2. SAo Paulo Research Foundation [2019/13229-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NMDA autoantibody encephalitis presenting as schizophrenia suggests the possible role of adaptive cell-mediated immunity in idiopathic schizophrenia. However, to our knowledge there have been no trials of the immune-suppressant methotrexate in schizophrenia. We tested if low-dose methotrexate as used in the treatment of systemic autoimmune disorders would be tolerable and effective in people with schizophrenia in a feasibility study. Ninety-two participants within 5 years of schizophrenia diagnosis were recruited from inpatient and outpatient facilities in Karachi, Pakistan. They were randomised to receive once weekly 10-mg oral methotrexate (n = 45) or matching placebo (n = 47) both with daily 5-mg folic acid, in addition to treatment as usual for 12 weeks. There were eight dropouts per group. Side effects were non-significantly more common in those on methotrexate and were not severe. One person developed leukopenia. Positive symptom scores improved more in those receiving methotrexate than placebo (beta = -2.5; [95% CI -4.7 to -0.4]), whereas negative symptoms were unaffected by treatment (beta = -0.39; [95% CI -2.01 to 1.23]). There were no immune biomarkers but methotrexate did not affect group mean leucocyte counts or C-reactive protein. We conclude that further studies are feasible but should be focussed on subgroups identified by advances in neuroimmune profiling. Methotrexate is thought to work in autoimmune disorders by resetting systemic regulatory T-cell control of immune signalling; we show that a similar action in the CNS would account for otherwise puzzling features of the immuno-pathogenesis of schizophrenia.

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