Split vs single-dose oral methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial (SMART study).

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Varun Dhir, Ranjan Gupta, Koshy Nithin Thomas, Phani Kumar Devarasetti, Venkatesh Srinivasa Pai, Avinash Jain, Gsrsnk Naidu, Priya Saini, Bidyalaxmi Leishangthem, Aastha Khullar, Ramesh Manthri, Shefali Khanna Sharma, Aman Sharma, Amita Aggarwal, Sanjay Jain
{"title":"Split vs single-dose oral methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial (SMART study).","authors":"Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Varun Dhir, Ranjan Gupta, Koshy Nithin Thomas, Phani Kumar Devarasetti, Venkatesh Srinivasa Pai, Avinash Jain, Gsrsnk Naidu, Priya Saini, Bidyalaxmi Leishangthem, Aastha Khullar, Ramesh Manthri, Shefali Khanna Sharma, Aman Sharma, Amita Aggarwal, Sanjay Jain","doi":"10.1007/s10067-025-07646-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pharmacokinetic evidence suggests split dose of oral methotrexate increases bioavailability, but unproven to improve efficacy. Thus, we planned to compare clinical response of split vs single-dose oral methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This pragmatic, open-label (blinded assessor) randomized controlled trial was conducted across six university hospitals in India and enrolled patients with seropositive RA with active disease (TJC<sub>28</sub> ≥ 4 and SJC<sub>28</sub> ≥ 2). They were randomized 1:1 to split-dose (15 mg morning, 10 mg evening) or single-dose (25 mg) once weekly oral methotrexate for 16 weeks, after which a second DMARD could be added. Primary outcome and key secondary outcomes were EULAR good response at 24 weeks and 16 weeks respectively. Analysis was by intention-to-treat with non-response imputation. Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2021/02/031361.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred fifty-three patients [83% female, mean age 42.2 years, mean disease duration 2.1 yrs] were randomized to receive either split-dose (n = 128) or single-dose (n = 125) methotrexate. Primary outcome, good response at 24 weeks, was not significantly higher with split-dose methotrexate (+ 6.5%, 95% CI - 4.2 to 17.2%, p = 0.263). However, key secondary outcome, good response at 16 weeks, was significantly higher with split-dose methotrexate (+ 12.3%, 95% CI 3.5 to 21.3%, p = 0.008). Also, less patients in split-dose group required addition of second DMARD at 16 weeks (- 19.5%, p = 0.003). Numerically higher transaminitis and intolerance occurred with split-dose MTX.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the primary outcome was not met, we found faster response and better efficacy at 16 weeks with split-dose oral MTX, and reduced need for a second DMARD. Key Points • This was the first RCT to compare split-dose (same-day, morning, evening) to single-dose oral methotrexate (MTX) and included 253 patients of RA. • Primary outcome was not met, i.e., split-dose MTX was not superior in terms of EULAR good response at 24 weeks. • However, key secondary outcome was met, i.e., split-dose MTX met led to significantly higher EULAR good response at 16 weeks; also it reduced need for addition of a second DMARD. • Split-dose MTX was associated with higher adverse effects (numerically) in terms of both intolerance and transaminitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":10482,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-025-07646-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Pharmacokinetic evidence suggests split dose of oral methotrexate increases bioavailability, but unproven to improve efficacy. Thus, we planned to compare clinical response of split vs single-dose oral methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: This pragmatic, open-label (blinded assessor) randomized controlled trial was conducted across six university hospitals in India and enrolled patients with seropositive RA with active disease (TJC28 ≥ 4 and SJC28 ≥ 2). They were randomized 1:1 to split-dose (15 mg morning, 10 mg evening) or single-dose (25 mg) once weekly oral methotrexate for 16 weeks, after which a second DMARD could be added. Primary outcome and key secondary outcomes were EULAR good response at 24 weeks and 16 weeks respectively. Analysis was by intention-to-treat with non-response imputation. Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2021/02/031361.

Results: Two hundred fifty-three patients [83% female, mean age 42.2 years, mean disease duration 2.1 yrs] were randomized to receive either split-dose (n = 128) or single-dose (n = 125) methotrexate. Primary outcome, good response at 24 weeks, was not significantly higher with split-dose methotrexate (+ 6.5%, 95% CI - 4.2 to 17.2%, p = 0.263). However, key secondary outcome, good response at 16 weeks, was significantly higher with split-dose methotrexate (+ 12.3%, 95% CI 3.5 to 21.3%, p = 0.008). Also, less patients in split-dose group required addition of second DMARD at 16 weeks (- 19.5%, p = 0.003). Numerically higher transaminitis and intolerance occurred with split-dose MTX.

Conclusion: Although the primary outcome was not met, we found faster response and better efficacy at 16 weeks with split-dose oral MTX, and reduced need for a second DMARD. Key Points • This was the first RCT to compare split-dose (same-day, morning, evening) to single-dose oral methotrexate (MTX) and included 253 patients of RA. • Primary outcome was not met, i.e., split-dose MTX was not superior in terms of EULAR good response at 24 weeks. • However, key secondary outcome was met, i.e., split-dose MTX met led to significantly higher EULAR good response at 16 weeks; also it reduced need for addition of a second DMARD. • Split-dose MTX was associated with higher adverse effects (numerically) in terms of both intolerance and transaminitis.

分剂量与单剂量口服甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿性关节炎:一项随机对照试验(SMART研究)
目的:药代动力学证据提示分次口服甲氨蝶呤可提高生物利用度,但未证实可提高疗效。因此,我们计划比较分剂量与单剂量口服甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿性关节炎(RA)的临床疗效。方法:这项实用的、开放标签(盲法评估)随机对照试验在印度的6所大学医院进行,纳入了伴有活动性疾病(TJC28≥4和SJC28≥2)的血清阳性RA患者。他们以1:1的比例随机分为分剂量(早上15 mg,晚上10 mg)或单剂量(25 mg)每周一次口服甲氨蝶呤,持续16周,之后可以添加第二次DMARD。主要终点和关键次要终点分别是24周和16周时EULAR良好反应。分析采用意向治疗和无反应归因法。临床试验注册-印度CTRI/2021/02/031361。结果:253例患者(83%为女性,平均年龄42.2岁,平均病程2.1年)随机接受分剂量(n = 128)或单剂量(n = 125)甲氨蝶呤治疗。主要结局是24周时的良好反应,分次给药甲氨蝶呤组没有显著提高(+ 6.5%,95% CI - 4.2至17.2%,p = 0.263)。然而,关键的次要结局,16周时的良好反应,在分开剂量的甲氨蝶呤组明显更高(+ 12.3%,95% CI 3.5至21.3%,p = 0.008)。同样,在16周时,分开给药组需要添加第二次DMARD的患者较少(- 19.5%,p = 0.003)。分剂量甲氨蝶呤的转氨炎和不耐受发生率较高。结论:虽然没有达到主要终点,但我们发现分次口服MTX在16周时反应更快,疗效更好,并且减少了第二次DMARD的需要。•这是第一个比较分剂量(当天、早晨、晚上)和单剂量口服甲氨蝶呤(MTX)的随机对照试验,纳入了253例RA患者。•未达到主要终点,即在24周时,分剂量MTX在EULAR良好反应方面并不优越。然而,达到了关键的次要终点,即在16周时,达到了分剂量MTX导致显著更高的EULAR良好反应;它还减少了对添加第二个DMARD的需求。•就不耐受和转氨炎而言,分次给药MTX与较高的不良反应(数值上)相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Rheumatology
Clinical Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
441
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Rheumatology is an international English-language journal devoted to publishing original clinical investigation and research in the general field of rheumatology with accent on clinical aspects at postgraduate level. The journal succeeds Acta Rheumatologica Belgica, originally founded in 1945 as the official journal of the Belgian Rheumatology Society. Clinical Rheumatology aims to cover all modern trends in clinical and experimental research as well as the management and evaluation of diagnostic and treatment procedures connected with the inflammatory, immunologic, metabolic, genetic and degenerative soft and hard connective tissue diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信