Meta-analysis reveals higher response rates and fewer gastrointestinal side effects with subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis, highlighting an effective alternative to oral dosing.
Objectives To integrate evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing subcutaneous (SC) and oral methotrexate (MTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide optimal clinical treatment strategies. Methods This meta-analysis conducted comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library, retrieving all relevant RCTs published up to June 18, 2025. Random-effects models were utilized to calculate the relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to evaluate efficacy and safety between subcutaneous injections and oral administration of MTX. Results A total of 1,034 articles were retrieved, and 9 RCTs that met the criteria were ultimately included, involving 974 RA patients in total. In the primary random-effects analyses, compared to oral MTX, subcutaneous MTX increased the ACR20 response rate (RR = 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05, 1.25), increased the ACR50 response rate (RR = 1.14; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.29), and reduced the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse event (AE) (RR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.83) and diarrhea (RR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.21, 0.84). Fixed-effect sensitivity analyses supported the ACR20 and GI-related safety findings, but the ACR50 result was attenuated. Subcutaneous MTX did not show statistically significant differences in ACR70 response rate, DAS28-ESR score, bioavailability area under the curve, C max , or the incidence of other AE. Conclusion Compared with oral administration, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a higher ACR20 response and lower GI-related AE and diarrhea in the primary random-effects analyses. These findings suggested that subcutaneous MTX may be an effective and generally well-tolerated option, particularly for patients with inadequate response or poor gastrointestinal tolerability to oral MTX, while evidence for ACR50, ACR70, DAS28-ESR and bioavailability remains less certain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: