Methotrexate for induction of remission in refractory Crohn's disease

Robarts Clinical Trials, Robarts Research Institute, P.O. Box 5015, 100 Perth Drive, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5K8.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2012; 12(12):CD003459. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003459.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although corticosteroids are effective for induction of remission of Crohn's disease, many patients relapse when steroids are withdrawn or become steroid dependent. Furthermore, corticosteroids exhibit significant adverse effects. The success of methotrexate as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis led to its evaluation in patients with refractory Crohn's disease. Methotrexate has been studied for induction of remission of refractory Crohn's disease and has become the principal alternative to azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine therapy. This systematic review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
The primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate for induction of remission in patients with active Crohn's disease in the presence or absence of concomitant steroid therapy.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized register from inception to June 27, 2012 for relevant studies. Conference proceedings and reference lists were also searched to identify additional studies.
Randomized controlled trials of methotrexate compared to placebo or an active comparator for treatment of active refractory Crohn's disease in adult patients (> 17 years) were considered for inclusion.
The primary outcome was failure to failure to enter remission and withdrawal from steroids. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, serious adverse events and quality of life. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting the primary outcome.
Seven studies (495 patients) were included. Four studies were rated as low risk of bias. Three studies were rated as high risk of bias due to open label or single-blind designs. The seven studies differed with respect to participants, intervention, and outcomes to the extent that it was considered to be inappropriate to pool the data for meta-analysis. Three small studies which employed low doses of oral methotrexate showed no statistically significant difference in failure to induce remission between methotrexate and placebo or between methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine. For the study using 15 mg/week of oral methotrexate 33% (5/15) of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 11% (2/18) of placebo patients (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.31). For the study using 12.5 mg/week of oral methotrexate 81% (21/26) of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 77% (20/26) of placebo patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.39). This study also had an active comparator arm, 81% (21/26) of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 59% (19/32) of 6-mercaptopurine patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.92). For the active comparator study using 15 mg/week oral methotrexate, 20% (3/15) of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 6% of 6-mercaptopurine patients (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 27.49). This study also had a 5-ASA arm and found that methotrexate patients were significantly more likely to enter remission than 5-ASA patients. Twenty per cent (3/15) of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 86% (6/7) of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67). One small study which used a higher dose of intravenous or oral methotrexate (25 mg/week) showed no statistically significant difference between methotrexate and azathioprine. Forty-four per cent (12/27) of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 37% of azathioprine patients (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.29). Two studies found no statistically significant difference in failure to enter remission between the combination of infliximab and methotrexate and infliximab monotherapy. One small study utilized intravenous methotrexate (20 mg/week) for 5 weeks and then switched to oral (20 mg/week). Forty-five per cent (5/11) of patients in the combination group failed to enter remission compared to 62% of infliximab patients (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69) The other study assessing combination therapy utilized subcutaneous methotrexate (maximum dose 25 mg/week). Twenty-four per cent (15/63) of patients in the combination group failed to enter remission compared to 22% (14/63) of infliximab patients (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03). A large placebo-controlled study which employed a high dose of methotrexate intramuscularly showed a statistically significant benefit relative to placebo. Sixty-one per cent of methotrexate patients failed to enter remission compared to 81% of placebo patients (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; number needed to treat, NNT=5). Withdrawals due to adverse events were significantly more common in methotrexate patients than placebo in this study. Seventeen per cent of methotrexate patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 2% of placebo patients (RR 8.00, 95% CI 1.09 to 58.51). The incidence of adverse events was significantly more common in methotrexate patients (63%, 17/27) than azathioprine patients (26%, 7/27) in one small study (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.89). No other statistically significant differences in adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were reported in any of the other placebo-controlled or active comparator studies. Common adverse events included nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, skin rash and headache.
There is evidence from a single large randomized trial which suggests that intramuscular methotrexate (25 mg/week) provides a benefit for induction of remission and complete withdrawal from steroids in patients with refractory Crohn's disease. Lower dose oral methotrexate does not appear to provide any significant benefit relative to placebo or active comparator. However, these trials were small and further studies of oral methotrexate may be justified. Comparative studies of methotrexate to drugs such as azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine would require the randomization of large numbers of patients. The addition of methotrexate to infliximab therapy does not appear to provide any additional benefit over infiximab monotherapy. However these studies were relatively small and further research is needed to determine the role of methotrexate when used in conjunction with infliximab or other biological therapies.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dovepress 359 R E v i E w open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article Abstract: Infliximab (IFX) is an effective treatment for inducing and maintaining response in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients. Some patients present lack of response or loss of response to IFX during maintenance therapy. Empirical management with combination therapy with an immunomodulator, IFX dose escalation, or switching IFX for another antitumor necrosis factor-α drug, mainly adalimumab, is common in clinical practice. Selecting the best choice with the help of serum drug concentrations and trough IFX antibody concentrations could be a very interesting approach. In addition to surgery, a broad spectrum of new drugs has been tested and could expand treatment options in the near future.
    Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology 09/2014; 7. DOI:10.2147/CEG.S45297
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Distinction between Crohn's disease of the colon-rectum and ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) type unclassified can be of pivotal importance for a tailored clinical management, as each entity often involves specific therapeutic strategies and prognosis. Nonetheless, no gold standard is available and the uncertainty of diagnosis may frequently lead to misclassification or repeated examinations. Hence, we have performed a literature search to address the problem of differential diagnosis in IBD colitis, revised current and emerging diagnostic tools and refined disease classification strategies. Nowadays, the differential diagnosis is an untangled issue, and the proper diagnosis cannot be reached in up to 10% of patients presenting with IBD colitis. This topic is receiving emerging attention, as medical therapies, surgical approaches and leading prognostic outcomes require more and more disease-specific strategies in IBD patients. The optimization of standard diagnostic approaches based on clinical features, biomarkers, radiology, endoscopy and histopathology appears to provide only marginal benefits. Conversely, emerging diagnostic techniques in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy, molecular pathology, genetics, epigenetics, metabolomics and proteomics have already shown promising results. Novel advanced endoscopic imaging techniques and biomarkers can shed new light for the differential diagnosis of IBD, better reflecting diverse disease behaviors based on specific pathogenic pathways.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 01/2015; 21(1):21-46. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v21.i1.21 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract associated with an imbalance of the intestinal microbiota. Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are the most widely known types of IBD and have been the focus of attention due to their increasing incidence. Recent studies have pointed out genes associated with IBD susceptibility that, together with environment factors, may contribute to the outcome of the disease. In ulcerative colitis, there are several therapies available, depending on the stage of the disease. Aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, and cyclosporine are used to treat mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively. In Crohn's disease, drug choices are dependent on both location and behavior of the disease. Nowadays, advances in treatments for IBD have included biological therapies, based mainly on monoclonal antibodies or fusion proteins, such as anti-TNF drugs. Notwithstanding the high cost involved, these biological therapies show a high index of remission, enabling a significant reduction in cases of surgery and hospitalization. Furthermore, migration inhibitors and new cytokine blockers are also a promising alternative for treating patients with IBD. In this review, an analysis of literature data on biological treatments for IBD is approached, with the main focus on therapies based on emerging recombinant biomolecules.
    Mediators of Inflammation 03/2015; · 2.42 Impact Factor