Methotrexate in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is a common inflammatory condition of the skin. Moderate to severe cases not responding to topical treatments and lifestyle changes may need second-line therapy. Methotrexate has been suggested as an effective treatment in such cases. OBJECTIVE: This study was done to determine the efficacy, adverse effects, and safety profile of methotrexate therapy in patients with atopic dermatitis. MATERIALS/METHODS: All adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis seen in the dermatology clinic at this tertiary hospital from January 2015 to December 2015 who were treated with methotrexate were reviewed in a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (19 female, 22 male, mean age 45 years, range 19-90 years) were enrolled. Of these, 29% were naive to any systemic treatments in the past, including systemic corticosteroids. Methotrexate treatment resulted in excellent improvement (>75%) in 93% of patients, good (50%-75% improvement) in 5%, and partial (25%-50% improvement) in 2%. Median duration of therapy was 26 months, and 80% of patients were still on treatment at last review. Transient nonsignificant elevation of transaminases was the most common adverse effect noted in 20%, followed by nausea in 12% and fatigue in 7%. A fibroscan was done in 10 patients at cumulative doses ranging from 2 to 11 g methotrexate. No liver fibrosis was seen in these patients. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate is an effective treatment for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis with an acceptable safety profile. A low dose can be used to control the disease for prolonged periods without significant risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".