4-WEEK OPEN-LABEL CONTROLLED RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE INJECTABLE AND TABLETTED FORMULATIONS OF METHOTREXATE IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

• Published in: Nauchno-prakticheskai͡a︡ revmatologii͡a Vol. 49; no. 5; pp. 58 - 61
• Main Authors: Muravyev, Yu. V., Denisov, L. N., Alekseyeva, A. V., Muravyeva, N. V., Shakhramanova, E. L., Kasumova, K. A., Gukasyan, D. A., Dydykina, I. S., Lebedeva, V. V., Nasonov, E. L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Russian
• Published: IMA PRESS LLC 15.06.2011
• Subjects: adverse reactions; injectable formulation; methoject; methotrexate; rheumatoid arthritis; tabletted formulation
• ISSN: 1995-4484; 1995-4492
• DOI: 10.14412/1995-4484-2011-1462

Objective: to estimate the advantages and disadvantages of using the injectable formulation of methotrexate (MT) (Methoject (MTJ)) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice. Subjects and methods. A 24-week open-label controlled randomized comparative study evaluated the therapeutic and side effects of MTJ and methotrexate tablets in RA and clarified whether MTJ treatment might be continued if its tabletted formulation was discontinued because of adverse reactions. Results and discussion. MTJ was found to be more effective than the tabletted formulation of MT and as a whole; and following 3-month therapy, more patients receiving MTJ achieved an ACR20 response. The advantage of MTJ was also retained 6 months after therapy. Higher transaminase levels were noted in 2 patients, one in each group. Switching from MT to MTJ noticeably reduced the number of adverse reactions in the majority of patients from an additional group. Conclusion. As compared to MT, MTJ used in RA patients is more effective when given in an equivalent dose, exerts a therapeutic effect more rapidly, and induces adverse gastrointestinal reactions less frequently.