中国全科医学 ›› 2021, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (24): 3071-3076.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.442

所属专题: 骨健康最新文章合集

• 专题研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

甲氨蝶呤和羟氯喹双联与甲氨蝶呤和羟氯喹及来氟米特三联治疗活动性类风湿关节炎的临床疗效及安全性:头对头研究

陈梅卿1,巫斌2,刘复安3,陈子卿4,林庆衍1,高艺桑1,孙月池1,陈世菊1,唐国宝5*   

  1. 1.361000福建省厦门市,厦门大学附属第一医院风湿免疫科 2.361000福建省厦门市,厦门大学附属厦门市仙岳医院风湿免疫科 3.361000福建省厦门市,厦门大学附属第一医院骨科 4.362100福建省泉州市惠安县医院内科 5.361000福建省厦门市,厦门大学附属第一医院全科医学科
    *通信作者:唐国宝,主任医师;E-mail:dyyytjb@163.com
    注:陈梅卿、巫斌为共同第一作者
  • 出版日期:2021-08-20 发布日期:2021-08-20

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Methotrexate with Hydroxychloroquine versus Methotrexate with Hydroxychloroquine and Leflunomide in Treating Active Rheumatoid Arthritis:a Head-to-head Comparative Trial 

CHEN Meiqing1,WU Bin2,LIU Fuan3,CHEN Ziqing4,LIN Qingyan1,GAO Yisang1,SUN Yuechi1,CHEN Shiju1,TANG Guobao5*   

  1. 1.Department of Rheumatology and Immunology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University,Xiamen 361000,China
    2.Department of Rheumatology,Xiamen Xianyue Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University,Xiamen 361000,China
    3.Department of Orthopedics,the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University,Xiamen 361000,China
    4.Department of Internal Medicine,Huian County Hospital,Quanzhou 362100,China
    5.Department of General Practice,First Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University,Xiamen 361000,China
    *Corresponding author:TANG Guobao,Chief physician;E-mail:dyyytjb@163.com
    CHEN Meiqing and WU Bin are co-first authors
  • Published:2021-08-20 Online:2021-08-20

摘要: 背景 传统合成改善病情抗风湿药物是治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)的基石,而甲氨蝶呤(MTX)、羟氯喹(HCQ)双联与MTX、HCQ、来氟米特(LEF)三联均是临床常用的治疗活动性RA的联合用药方案,但尚缺乏头对头研究数据。目的 比较MTX、HCQ双联与MTX、HCQ、LEF三联治疗活动性RA的临床疗效与安全性。方法 选取2017年1月—2019年12月厦门大学附属第一医院和厦门大学附属厦门市仙岳医院风湿免疫科门诊或病房收治的活动性RA患者100例,按照1∶1比例、采用简单随机法分为双联组和三联组,每组50例。双联组患者采用MTX联合HCQ治疗,三联组患者采用MTX联合HCQ及LEF治疗;两组患者均连续治疗24 周。比较两组患者治疗第12、24周美国风湿病协会(ACR)70、ACR50、ACR20、使用非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)者所占比例、泼尼松剂量及治疗期间不良反应发生情况。结果 最终纳入疗效评估者88例,其中双联组42例,三联组46例;两组患者治疗第12、24周ACR70、ACR50、ACR20、使用NSAIDs者所占比例、泼尼松剂量比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。最终纳入安全性评价者94例,其中双联组45例,三联组49例;双联组患者严重胃肠道反应发生率高于三联组(P<0.05),而两组患者头晕、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)或天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)升高(<参考范围上限2倍)、过敏性皮炎、高血压、视力下降、口腔溃疡、消瘦发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 MTX、HCQ双联与MTX、HCQ、LEF三联治疗活动性RA的临床疗效相当,安全性和耐受性均较高,但MTX、HCQ、LEF三联方案有利于减少严重胃肠道反应的发生。

关键词: 关节炎, 类风湿;甲氨蝶呤;羟氯喹;来氟米特;药物疗法, 联合;治疗结果;安全;对比研究

Abstract: Background Traditionally synthetized disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis(RA)treatment. Methotrexate(MTX)with hydroxychloroquine(HCQ),as well as MTX with HCQ and leflunomide(LEF)are common clinical combination therapies for active RA,but there is lack of head-to-head research. Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of MTX with HCQ versus MTX with HCQ and LEF in treating active RA. Methods A total of 100 inpatients and outpatients with active RA were selected from Department of Rheumatology and Immunology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University and Xiamen Xianyue Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University from January 2017 to December 2019,and simply randomized into dual therapy(treated by MTX with HCQ)and triple therapy groups(treated by MTX with HCQ and LEF)in a 1∶1 ratio. The treatment for both groups lasted for 24 consecutive weeks. ACR70,ACR50,and ACR20 responses,proportion of patients using NSAIDs,dose of prednisone at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment,as well as incidence of adverse reactions during treatment were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 88 patients were involved in efficacy evaluation,including 42 with dual therapy and 46 with triple therapy. Both groups had no significant differences in ACR70,ACR50 and ACR20 responses,proportion of patients using NSAIDs or dose of prednisone at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment(P>0.05). A total of 94 patients were involved in safety evaluation,including 45 with dual therapy and 49 with triple therapy. The incidence of severe gastrointestinal reactions in dual therapy group was significantly higher than that in triple therapy group(P<0.05),but there was no significant intergroup difference in incidence of dizziness,elevated ALT or AST(less than 2 times the upper limit of the reference range),allergic dermatitis,hypertension,loss of vision,dental ulcer or emaciation(P>0.05). Conclusion Both therapies have similar clinical efficacy in treating active RA,with relatively high safety and tolerance,but the triple therapy is more helpful to reduce the risk of severe gastrointestinal reactions.

Key words: Arthritis, rheumatoid;Methotrexate;Hydroxychloroquine;Leflunomide;Drug therapy, combination;Treatment outcome;Safety;Comparative study