Dataset Information

Effect of methotrexate use on the development of type 2 diabetes in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: The high risk of cardiovascular disease is well recognized in rheumatoid arthritis. Type 2 diabetes also attributes to this increase in risk. Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory condition, which aggravates insulin resistance, placing the patients at a higher risk of type 2 diabetes and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes. Methotrexate treatment, as a gold standard anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has shown beneficial effects on cardiovascular health. However, its impact on type 2 diabetes is still unknown.

Objective: To assess the strength of the association between exposure to methotrexate and the rate of development of type 2 diabetes in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Methods: All rheumatoid arthritis studies reporting the use of methotrexate as an exposure and type 2 diabetes as an outcome were searched until March 2020 using MEDLINE, Cochrane and Scopus databases. Studies were included if the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was made according to current guidelines or by a rheumatologist, and if there was information about methotrexate exposure and the type 2 diabetes outcome. The author and an independent assessor evaluated the articles for eligibility. Meta-analyses combined relative risk estimates from each study where raw counts were available.

Results: Sixteen studies reporting sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analyses were identified. Methotrexate showed a promising effect on the risk of type 2 diabetes as this risk decreased in rheumatoid arthritis patients using methotrexate (Relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.16, 1.43).

Conclusion: Rheumatoid arthritis patients on methotrexate treatment had a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to rheumatoid arthritis patients not exposed to methotrexate. This finding highlights the need for future, randomized control trials to confirm the beneficial effect of methotrexate on type 2 diabetes in the rheumatoid arthritis population.

SUBMITTER: Baghdadi LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7337336 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of methotrexate use on the development of type 2 diabetes in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Baghdadi Leena R LR

PloS one 20200706 7

<h4>Background</h4>The high risk of cardiovascular disease is well recognized in rheumatoid arthritis. Type 2 diabetes also attributes to this increase in risk. Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory condition, which aggravates insulin resistance, placing the patients at a higher risk of type 2 diabetes and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes. Methotrexate treatment, as a gold standard anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has shown beneficial effects on cardiova ...[more]

PMID: 32628710

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disease with inflammatory synovitis. Iguratimod (IGU) combined with methotrexate (MTX) therapy may have better efficacy and safety. Methods: First, we searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IGU + MTX in the treatment of RA through literature databases (such as PubMed, Corkland Library, CNKI, etc.) and then conducted RCT quality assessment and data extraction. Finally, we used RevMan 5.3 for meta-analysis, STATA 15.0 for publication bias assessment, and GRADE tool for the evidence quality assessment of primary outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021220780). Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 31 RCTs involving 2,776 patients. Compared with MTX alone, the ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 of IGU + MTX are higher, while DAS28 is lower [ACR20: (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14-2.13, p = 0.006); ACR50: (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.57-2.65, p < 0.00001); ACR70: (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.44-3.34, p = 0.00003); DAS28: (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.65, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.91, p < 0.0001)]. Compared with MTX + leflunomide, IGU + MTX has no significant difference in improving ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, but IGU + MTX improves DAS28 more significantly [ACR20: (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79-1.89, p = 0.59); ACR50: (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64-1.78, p = 0.81); ACR70: (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.44-3.10, p = 0.76); DAS28: (WMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.38, p < 0.0001)]. Compared with the MTX + tripterygium subgroup and MTX-only subgroup, the incidence of adverse events of the IGU + MTX group is of no statistical significance [MTX only: (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, p = 0.90); MTX + Tripterygium: (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.29-1.85, p = 0.50)]. However, compared with MTX + leflunomide, the incidence of adverse events in the IGU + MTX group was lower (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, p = 0.0009). The quality of ACR70 was high; the quality of adverse events and ACR50 test was moderate. Conclusion: Compared with conventional therapy, IGU + MTX may be a safer and more effective therapy for RA patients. When the intervention method is (IGU 25 mg Bid, MTX 10-25 mg once a week), and the intervention lasts for at least 12 weeks, the curative effect may be achieved without obvious adverse events.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.DesignSystematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Data sourcesTrials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.Study selection criteriaRandomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.Main outcomesAmerican College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.Results158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.ConclusionsTriple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.

Project description:ObjectiveDespite the development of new biologic therapies, methotrexate (MTX) remains the preferred initial disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Adherence to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs is suspected to be highly variable potentially leading to reduced treatment effectiveness. This work aimed to develop and validate the Methotrexate Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), a tool to identify and characterize non-adherence to oral MTX.MethodsMEQ development included a literature review and qualitative interviews with RA patients and physicians in the United States. A retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from Optimum Patient Care Research Database, a large primary care database of electronic medical records in the United Kingdom, was conducted to finalize the MEQ and evaluate its psychometric properties.ResultsThree hundred seven e-consented subjects (66% women, mean age of 65 years) completed the MEQ remotely, and were included in this analysis. Item-convergent and divergent validity were generally supportive of the construct validity of the MEQ and Cronbach's alpha of 0.87 supported its reliability. The MEQ Total score presented statistically significant correlations of small to medium size with all selected concurrent scales, as expected; the highest correlation was obtained between the general acceptance score of ACCEPT and the MEQ Total score (0.55, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated as a logical pattern of higher MEQ scores was obtained for patients considered adherent with both the 6- and 12-month Proportion of Days Covered (mean MEQ total score 82.7 for 12-month PDC ≥ 80% against 76.3 for 12-month PDC < 80%, p< 0.0001). Additionally, a pattern of lower MEQ scores was obtained for patients with more severe disease assessed with Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3.ConclusionThe 24-item MEQ is a reliable and valid instrument to assess the adherence of RA patients taking MTX, potentially improving over historical refill rate metrics by providing insights into the individual reasons for lack of adherence. This information should facilitate clinician-patient discussions and help inform treatment decisions.

Dataset Information

Effect of methotrexate use on the development of type 2 diabetes in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effect of methotrexate use on the development of type 2 diabetes in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure