E H Pieter van Dijkhuizen1, Juliëtte N Pouw2, Andrea Scheuern3, Boris Hügle3, Sven Hardt4, Gerd Ganser4, Jasmin Beate Kümmerle-Deschner5, Gerd Horneff6, Dirk Holzinger7, Maja Bulatović Ćalasan8, Nico M Wulffraat2. 1. University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands; and IRCCS G. Gaslini, Genoa, Italy. e.h.p.dijkhuizen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. German Center for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. 4. St. Josef-Stift, Sendenhorst, Germany. 5. University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. 6. Asklepios Klinik Sankt Augustin, Sankt Augustin, Germany. 7. University Children's Hospital Münster, Germany. 8. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Methotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). In Dutch patients, MTX intolerance occurred frequently and was associated with subcutaneous (SC) administration. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of MTX intolerance and its association with the route of administration in a German cohort of JIA patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of JIA patients on MTX was performed. Primary outcome was MTX intolerance, which was determined using the validated Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire. The prevalence of gastrointestinal adverse effects and MTX intolerance was compared between patients on MTX SC and MTX administered orally (PO). RESULTS: Of 179 JIA patients on MTX, 73 (40.8%) were intolerant. The odds of MTX intolerance were higher in patients using MTX exclusively SC compared to exclusively PO (adjusted odds ratio 3.37 [95% confidence interval 1.19-10.0]). There was strong evidence that the former experienced more behavioural complaints (76.1% vs. 47.4%, p=0.001) and weak evidence that they experienced more abdominal pain after MTX intake (43.5% vs. 27.4%, p=0.056). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MTX intolerance was high and exclusively SC administration of MTX was associated with MTX intolerance and behavioural adverse effects. The prevalence of gastrointestinal adverse effects was at least as high as in patients on MTX PO. The frequently held assumption that SC causes fewer side effects than PO seems unwarranted. Definite answers about the differences between SC and PO administration with respect to safety and efficacy should be obtained by randomised trials.
OBJECTIVES:Methotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). In Dutch patients, MTX intolerance occurred frequently and was associated with subcutaneous (SC) administration. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of MTX intolerance and its association with the route of administration in a German cohort of JIA patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of JIA patients on MTX was performed. Primary outcome was MTX intolerance, which was determined using the validated Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire. The prevalence of gastrointestinal adverse effects and MTX intolerance was compared between patients on MTX SC and MTX administered orally (PO). RESULTS: Of 179 JIA patients on MTX, 73 (40.8%) were intolerant. The odds of MTX intolerance were higher in patients using MTX exclusively SC compared to exclusively PO (adjusted odds ratio 3.37 [95% confidence interval 1.19-10.0]). There was strong evidence that the former experienced more behavioural complaints (76.1% vs. 47.4%, p=0.001) and weak evidence that they experienced more abdominal pain after MTX intake (43.5% vs. 27.4%, p=0.056). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MTX intolerance was high and exclusively SC administration of MTX was associated with MTX intolerance and behavioural adverse effects. The prevalence of gastrointestinal adverse effects was at least as high as in patients on MTX PO. The frequently held assumption that SC causes fewer side effects than PO seems unwarranted. Definite answers about the differences between SC and PO administration with respect to safety and efficacy should be obtained by randomised trials.
Authors: Sarah Ringold; Sheila T Angeles-Han; Timothy Beukelman; Daniel Lovell; Carlos A Cuello; Mara L Becker; Robert A Colbert; Brian M Feldman; Polly J Ferguson; Harry Gewanter; Jaime Guzman; Jennifer Horonjeff; Peter A Nigrovic; Michael J Ombrello; Murray H Passo; Matthew L Stoll; C Egla Rabinovich; Rayfel Schneider; Olha Halyabar; Kimberly Hays; Amit Aakash Shah; Nancy Sullivan; Ann Marie Szymanski; Marat Turgunbaev; Amy Turner; James Reston Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Sarah Ringold; Sheila T Angeles-Han; Timothy Beukelman; Daniel Lovell; Carlos A Cuello; Mara L Becker; Robert A Colbert; Brian M Feldman; Polly J Ferguson; Harry Gewanter; Jaime Guzman; Jennifer Horonjeff; Peter A Nigrovic; Michael J Ombrello; Murray H Passo; Matthew L Stoll; C Egla Rabinovich; Rayfel Schneider; Olha Halyabar; Kimberly Hays; Amit Aakash Shah; Nancy Sullivan; Ann Marie Szymanski; Marat Turgunbaev; Amy Turner; James Reston Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Finola M Bruins; Maartje R Van Acht; Inge M G J Bronckers; Hans M M Groenewoud; Elke M G J De Jong; Marieke M B Seyger Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Inge M G J Bronckers; Marieke M B Seyger; Dennis P West; Irene Lara-Corrales; Megha Tollefson; Wynnis L Tom; Marcia Hogeling; Leah Belazarian; Claus Zachariae; Emmanuel Mahé; Elaine Siegfried; Sandra Philipp; Zsuzsanna Szalai; Ruth Ann Vleugels; Kristen Holland; Ruth Murphy; Eulalia Baselga; Kelly Cordoro; Jo Lambert; Alex Alexopoulos; Ulrich Mrowietz; Wietske Kievit; Amy S Paller Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 10.282