Dataset Information

Low-Dose Methotrexate and Mucocutaneous Adverse Events: Results of a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Methotrexate (MTX) increases the risk of alopecia and stomatitis, but the prevalence of these adverse events among rheumatic patients taking MTX is poorly defined. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of alopecia and stomatitis with MTX in rheumatic diseases.

Methods

We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an MTX monotherapy arm. Alopecia, stomatitis, and oral/mouth ulcers data were extracted. The quality of trials was assessed by 2 authors. We included trials published since 1990 that used at least 10 mg of MTX weekly, coadministered with folic or folinic acid. We estimated the prevalence using random-effects models because heterogeneity was anticipated. Two estimates of prevalence were included; the lower bound estimate included all trials (assuming no alopecia and stomatitis if not mentioned), and the upper bound estimate included only those that specifically described prevalence estimates of alopecia or stomatitis.

Results

Of 3,954 studies identified, 20 RCTs were included, with a total of 24 MTX monotherapy arms, of which 10 reported the prevalence of alopecia (n = 1,113), and 21 reported stomatitis or mouth/oral ulcers (n = 2,056). The prevalence of alopecia was between 1.0% and 4.9%. The prevalence of stomatitis was between 5.7% and 8.0%.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis gives more precise estimates of mucocutaneous adverse events that occur in rheumatic disease patients taking MTX. These estimates will help inform patient decision-making regarding MTX.

SUBMITTER: Lalani R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6885092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose methotrexate (LD-MTX) is the most commonly used drug for systemic rheumatic diseases worldwide and is the recommended first-line agent for rheumatoid arthritis. Despite extensive clinical use for more than 30 years, few data on adverse event (AE) rates derive from randomized, placebo-controlled trials, where both causality and magnitude of risk can be inferred.ObjectiveTo investigate AE rates, risk, and risk differences comparing LD-MTX versus placebo.DesignPrespecified secondary analyses of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01594333).SettingNorth America.ParticipantsAdults with known cardiovascular disease and diabetes or metabolic syndrome.InterventionRandom allocation to LD-MTX (≤20 mg/wk) or placebo. All participants received folic acid, 1 mg/d, 6 days per week.MeasurementsRisks for specific AEs of interest, as well as for all AEs, were compared across treatment groups after blinded adjudication.ResultsAfter an active run-in period, 6158 patients were enrolled and 4786 randomly assigned to a group; median follow-up was 23 months and median dosage 15 mg/wk. Among the randomly assigned participants, 81.2% were male, median age was 65.7 years, and median body mass index was 31.5 kg/m2. Of 2391 participants assigned to LD-MTX, 2080 (87.0%) had an AE of interest, compared with 1951 of 2395 (81.5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.25]). The relative hazards of gastrointestinal (HR, 1.91 [CI, 1.75 to 2.10]), pulmonary (HR, 1.52 [CI, 1.16 to 1.98]), infectious (HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.01 to 1.30]), and hematologic (HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.07 to 1.23]) AEs were elevated for LD-MTX versus placebo. With the exception of increased risk for skin cancer (HR, 2.05 [CI, 1.28 to 3.28]), the treatment groups did not differ in risk for other cancer or mucocutaneous, neuropsychiatric, or musculoskeletal AEs. Renal AEs were reduced in the LD-MTX group (HR, 0.85 [CI, 0.78 to 0.93]).LimitationThe trial was done in patients without rheumatic disease who tolerated LD-MTX during an active run-in period.ConclusionUse of LD-MTX was associated with small to moderate elevations in risks for skin cancer and gastrointestinal, infectious, pulmonary, and hematologic AEs, whereas renal AEs were decreased.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundInflammation is causally related to atherothrombosis. Treatment with canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits inflammation by neutralizing interleukin-1β, resulted in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo in a previous randomized trial. We sought to determine whether an alternative approach to inflammation inhibition with low-dose methotrexate might provide similar benefit.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of low-dose methotrexate (at a target dose of 15 to 20 mg weekly) or matching placebo in 4786 patients with previous myocardial infarction or multivessel coronary disease who additionally had either type 2 diabetes or the metabolic syndrome. All participants received 1 mg of folate daily. The primary end point at the onset of the trial was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Near the conclusion of the trial, but before unblinding, hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization was added to the primary end point.ResultsThe trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Methotrexate did not result in lower interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, or C-reactive protein levels than placebo. The final primary end point occurred in 201 patients in the methotrexate group and in 207 in the placebo group (incidence rate, 4.13 vs. 4.31 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.16). The original primary end point occurred in 170 patients in the methotrexate group and in 167 in the placebo group (incidence rate, 3.46 vs. 3.43 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25). Methotrexate was associated with elevations in liver-enzyme levels, reductions in leukocyte counts and hematocrit levels, and a higher incidence of non-basal-cell skin cancers than placebo.ConclusionsAmong patients with stable atherosclerosis, low-dose methotrexate did not reduce levels of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, or C-reactive protein and did not result in fewer cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CIRT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01594333.).

Project description:BackgroundMethotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). In JIA, it is important to start effective treatment early to avoid long-term sequelae, such as joint damage. To accomplish this goal, it is crucial to know beforehand who is going to respond well to MTX. In addition, MTX adverse effects such as MTX intolerance occur frequently, potentially hindering its efficacy. To avoid inefficacy of an otherwise effective drug, the physician should be timely aware of these adverse events. Consequently, to optimise treatment of JIA patients with MTX, predictors for efficacy and adverse events should be used in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to summarise the existing knowledge about such predictors.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library, and 1,331 articles were identified. These were selected based on their relevance to the topic and critically appraised according to pre-defined criteria. Predictors for MTX efficacy and adverse events were extracted from the literature and tabulated.ResultsTwenty articles were selected. The overall quality of the studies was good. For MTX efficacy, candidate predictors were antinuclear antibody positivity, the childhood health assessment questionnaire score, the myeloid-related protein 8/14 level, long-chain MTX polyglutamates, bilateral wrist involvement and some single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the adenosine triphosphate binding cassette and solute carrier transporter gene families. For MTX adverse events, potential predictors were alanine aminotransferase and thrombocyte level and two SNPs in the γ-glutamyl hydrolase and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase genes. However, validation of most predictors in independent cohorts was still lacking.ConclusionsInteresting candidate predictors were found, especially for MTX efficacy. However, most of these were not validated. This should be the goal of future efforts. A clinically relevant way to validate the predictors is by means of creating a clinical prediction model.

Project description:ImportanceMethotrexate is widely used for the treatment of inflammatory disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis. Studies suggest that methotrexate may be associated with an increased risk of melanoma.ObjectiveTo determine whether methotrexate exposure is associated with an increased risk of cutaneous melanoma.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to May 12, 2022, for eligible studies.Study selectionCase-control studies, cohort studies, or randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they examined the odds or risk of cutaneous melanoma in individuals exposed to low-dose methotrexate in comparison with individuals unexposed. No language limitations were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data on study characteristics and outcome data. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. To assess study quality, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist was used for cohort and case-control studies. Odds ratio from case-control studies and relative risk or hazard ratio from cohort studies or RCTs were pooled, and a random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted.Main outcomes and measuresPrespecified outcome was the odds ratio, hazard ratio, or risk ratio of cutaneous melanoma comparing low-dose methotrexate exposure with nonexposure.ResultsSeventeen studies (8 RCTs, 5 cohort studies, 4 case-control studies) were eligible for inclusion, and of these, 12 studies with 16 642 cases of melanoma were pooled in the primary analysis. Indications for methotrexate included rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease and were unknown in 5 studies. Compared with unexposed individuals, study participants with methotrexate exposure had a small increased risk of melanoma (pooled relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22), but this did not persist in a sensitivity analysis excluding the largest study (pooled relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.00-1.24). Subgroup analyses according to comparator group (comparing methotrexate exposure with either immunomodulator alone vs immunomodulator and methotrexate) or the indication for methotrexate being rheumatoid arthritis provided similar risk estimates. Using geographical population melanoma incidence rates, a number needed to harm of 18 630 was calculated in Australia, and 41 425 in North America.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, low-dose methotrexate exposure was associated with an increased melanoma risk, but the absolute risk increase could be considered negligible.

Project description:Background/aimsRegulatory approval of a drug or device involves an assessment of not only the benefits but also the risks of adverse events associated with the therapeutic agent. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating effectiveness, the number of treated patients in a single RCT may not be enough to detect a rare but serious side effect of the treatment. Meta-analysis plays an important role in the evaluation of the safety of medical products and has advantage over analyzing a single RCT when estimating the rate of adverse events.MethodsIn this article, we compare 15 widely used meta-analysis models under both Bayesian and frequentist frameworks when outcomes are extremely infrequent or rare. We present extensive simulation study results and then apply these methods to a real meta-analysis that considers RCTs investigating the effect of rosiglitazone on the risks of myocardial infarction and of death from cardiovascular causes.ResultsOur simulation studies suggest that the beta hyperprior method modeling treatment group-specific parameters and accounting for heterogeneity performs the best. Most models ignoring between-study heterogeneity give poor coverage probability when such heterogeneity exists. In the data analysis, different methods provide a wide range of log odds ratio estimates between rosiglitazone and control treatments with a mixed conclusion on their statistical significance based on 95% confidence (or credible) intervals.ConclusionIn the rare event setting, treatment effect estimates obtained from traditional meta-analytic methods may be biased and provide poor coverage probability. This trend worsens when the data have large between-study heterogeneity. In general, we recommend methods that first estimate the summaries of treatment-specific risks across studies and then relative treatment effects based on the summaries when appropriate. Furthermore, we recommend fitting various methods, comparing the results and model performance, and investigating any significant discrepancies among them.