Literature DB >> 9117183

Why intramuscular methotrexate may be more efficacious than oral dosing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

R A Hamilton1, J M Kremer.   

Abstract

In order to compare the relative bioavailability of orally administered methotrexate (MTX) with i.m. administration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, we compared the pharmacokinetics of MTX at both the usual starting dose of 7.5 mg and at higher established maintenance dosages in 21 patients. Pharmacokinetic measures were repeated approximately 6 and 18 months after baseline while patients consumed their usual maintenance doses of MTX (17.0 +/- 3.8 mg). The relative bioavailability of the usual maintenance dose of MTX was reduced by 13.5% compared with the initial dose of 7.5 mg (P = 0.026). Area under the serum concentration vs time curve (AUC) was significantly reduced with oral vs i.m. administration at usual maintenance doses (decrease of 0.729 mumol.h/l by oral administration, P = 0.027), but not at a 7.5 mg dose of MTX. Clinicians using MTX should not assume constant and complete bioavailability across the dose range used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Our observations explain the reported clinical success of switching from an oral to a parenteral route of administration in patients receiving maintenance doses of MTX.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9117183     DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.1.86

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Rheumatol        ISSN: 0263-7103


  26 in total

1.  Methotrexate: a useful alternative in Crohn's disease?

Authors:  A B Hawthorne
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults.

Authors:  M J Carter; A J Lobo; S P L Travis
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  European evidence based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease: current management.

Authors:  S P L Travis; E F Stange; M Lémann; T Oresland; Y Chowers; A Forbes; G D'Haens; G Kitis; A Cortot; C Prantera; P Marteau; J-F Colombel; P Gionchetti; Y Bouhnik; E Tiret; J Kroesen; M Starlinger; N J Mortensen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Therapy: methotrexate guidelines: compromise to reach consensus.

Authors:  Joel M Kremer
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 20.543

5.  [Methotrexate: advantages of subcutaneous administration].

Authors:  K Krüger
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 6.  Efficacy of methotrexate in ulcerative colitis: failure or promise.

Authors:  Hans H Herfarth; Mark T Osterman; Kim L Isaacs; James D Lewis; Bruce E Sands
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.325

Review 7.  Methotrexate: underused and ignored?

Authors:  Hans H Herfarth; Millie D Long; Kim L Isaacs
Journal:  Dig Dis       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 2.404

8.  When should we use parenteral methotrexate?

Authors:  Hayley Mainman; Emma McClaren; Carol Heycock; Vadivelu Saravanan; Jennifer Hamilton; Clive Kelly
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 9.  Efficacy, tolerability and cost effectiveness of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Michael T Nurmohamed; Ben A C Dijkmans
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 10.  Inadequate response or intolerability to oral methotrexate: Is it optimal to switch to subcutaneous methotrexate prior to considering therapy with biologics?

Authors:  Sujani Yadlapati; Petros Efthimiou
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 2.631

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.