4.7 Article

Factors associated with toxicity, final dose, and efficacy of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 423-426

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.62.5.423

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study factors associated with toxicity, final dose, and efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Data were used from a randomised clinical 48 week trial on 411 patients with RA all treated with MTX, comparing folates and placebo. Logistic regression was used to study the relation between baseline variables and various dependent factors, including hepatotoxicity (alanine aminotransferase greater than or equal to3xupper limit of normal), MTX withdrawal, final MTX dose greater than or equal to15 mg/week, and MTX efficacy. Results: Addition of folates to MTX treatment was strongly related to the lack of hepatotoxicity. Next to this, high body mass index was related to the occurrence of hepatotoxicity. Prior gastrointestinal (GI) events and younger age were related to the adverse event, diarrhoea. Hepatotoxicity and GI adverse events were the main reason for MTX withdrawal, which in turn was associated with the absence of folate supplementation, body mass index, prior GI events, and female sex. Renal function (creatinine clearance greater than or equal to50 ml/min) was not associated with toxicity. Reaching a final dose of MTX of greater than or equal to15 mg/week was related to folate supplementation and the absence of prior GI events. Efficacy of MTX treatment was associated with low disease activity at baseline, male sex, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and lower creatinine clearance. Conclusions: MTX toxicity, final dose, and efficacy are influenced by folate supplementation. Baseline characteristics predicting the outcome of MTX treatment are mainly prior GI events, body mass index, sex, use of NSAIDs, and creatinine clearance.

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