Systematic review: Methotrexate—A poorly understood and underused medication in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methotrexate, an immunosuppressant used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for over 30 years, remains underused compared to thiopurines. AIMS: To review the efficacy, safety, optimal dosing and delivery regimens of methotrexate in adults with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies involving patients with IBD treated with methotrexate from inception to August 2023. All studies were included from the MEDLINE database via PubMed. RESULTS: For Crohn's disease, we included eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 17 observational studies. Parenteral methotrexate effectively increased remission rates in steroid-dependent patients at 25 mg/week for 16 weeks and at 15 mg/week for maintenance. Methotrexate can be used in combination with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents to reduce immunogenicity. Data comparing thiopurines and methotrexate remain scarce. For ulcerative colitis (UC), we included five RCTs and 10 observational studies were included; there was no evidence to support the use of methotrexate in (UC). We extracted safety data from 17 studies; mild-to-moderate adverse effects were common. The incidence of liver fibrosis or cirrhosis was low. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate is effective at inducing and maintaining remission in steroid-refractory Crohn's disease and can reduce anti-TNF-induced immunogenicity when used in combination therapy. Data regarding tolerance and safety are reassuring. These findings challenge preconceived ideas on methotrexate and suggest that it is a valid first-line conventional option for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Crohn's disease.
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 | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".