Frontiers in immunology · 2026
Subcutaneous methotrexate compared with oral methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Guangtao, Xie Wenhui, Liu Jiaxi, Geng Yan, Zhang Zhuoli
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To integrate evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing subcutaneous (SC) and oral methotrexate (MTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide optimal clinical treatment strategies.
METHODS: This meta-analysis conducted comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library, retrieving all relevant RCTs published up to June 18, 2025. Random-effects models were utilized to calculate the relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to evaluate efficacy and safety between subcutaneous injections and oral administration of MTX.
RESULTS: A total of 1,034 articles were retrieved, and 9 RCTs that met the criteria were ultimately included, involving 974 RA patients in total. In the primary random-effects analyses, compared to oral MTX, subcutaneous MTX increased the ACR20 response rate (RR = 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05, 1.25), increased the ACR50 response rate (RR = 1.14; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.29), and reduced the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse event (AE) (RR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.83) and diarrhea (RR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.21, 0.84). Fixed-effect sensitivity analyses supported the ACR20 and GI-related safety findings, but the ACR50 result was attenuated. Subcutaneous MTX did not show statistically significant differences in ACR70 response rate, DAS28-ESR score, bioavailability area under the curve, Cmax, or the incidence of other AE.
CONCLUSION: Compared with oral administration, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a higher ACR20 response and lower GI-related AE and diarrhea in the primary random-effects analyses. These findings suggested that subcutaneous MTX may be an effective and generally well-tolerated option, particularly for patients with inadequate response or poor gastrointestinal tolerability to oral MTX, while evidence for ACR50, ACR70, DAS28-ESR and bioavailability remains less certain.
METHODS: This meta-analysis conducted comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library, retrieving all relevant RCTs published up to June 18, 2025. Random-effects models were utilized to calculate the relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to evaluate efficacy and safety between subcutaneous injections and oral administration of MTX.
RESULTS: A total of 1,034 articles were retrieved, and 9 RCTs that met the criteria were ultimately included, involving 974 RA patients in total. In the primary random-effects analyses, compared to oral MTX, subcutaneous MTX increased the ACR20 response rate (RR = 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05, 1.25), increased the ACR50 response rate (RR = 1.14; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.29), and reduced the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse event (AE) (RR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.83) and diarrhea (RR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.21, 0.84). Fixed-effect sensitivity analyses supported the ACR20 and GI-related safety findings, but the ACR50 result was attenuated. Subcutaneous MTX did not show statistically significant differences in ACR70 response rate, DAS28-ESR score, bioavailability area under the curve, Cmax, or the incidence of other AE.
CONCLUSION: Compared with oral administration, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a higher ACR20 response and lower GI-related AE and diarrhea in the primary random-effects analyses. These findings suggested that subcutaneous MTX may be an effective and generally well-tolerated option, particularly for patients with inadequate response or poor gastrointestinal tolerability to oral MTX, while evidence for ACR50, ACR70, DAS28-ESR and bioavailability remains less certain.