ABSTRACT
The gut microbiota and its related metabolites differ between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and healthy controls. In this study, we compared faecal volatile organic compound (VOC) patterns of paediatric IBD patients and controls with gastrointestinal symptoms (CGIs). Additionally, we aimed to assess if baseline VOC profiles could predict treatment response in paediatric IBD patients. We collected faecal samples from a cohort of de novo therapy-naïve paediatric IBD patients and CGIs. VOCs were analysed using gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS). Response was defined as a combination of clinical response based on disease activity scores, without requiring treatment escalation. We included 109 paediatric IBD patients and 75 CGIs, aged 4 to 17 years. Faecal VOC profiles of paediatric IBD patients were distinguishable from those of CGIs (AUC ± 95% CI, p-values: 0.71 (0.64-0.79), <0.001). This discrimination was observed in both Crohn's disease (CD) (0.75 (0.67-0.84), <0.001) and ulcerative colitis (UC) (0.67 (0.56-0.78), 0.01) patients. VOC profiles between CD and UC patients were not distinguishable (0.57 (0.45-0.69), 0.87). Baseline VOC profiles of responders did not differ from non-responders (0.70 (0.58-0.83), 0.1). In conclusion, faecal VOC profiles of paediatric IBD patients differ significantly from those of CGIs.
Subject(s)
Feces , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Ion Mobility Spectrometry , Volatile Organic Compounds , Humans , Volatile Organic Compounds/analysis , Child , Feces/chemistry , Adolescent , Female , Male , Case-Control Studies , Child, Preschool , Ion Mobility Spectrometry/methods , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/metabolism , Crohn Disease/metabolism , Colitis, Ulcerative/metabolism , Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/methods , Gastrointestinal Microbiome/physiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This review aims to critically evaluate the potential benefit of either oral or subcutaneous administration of methotrexate (MTX) in various immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs) through analysis of efficacy, toxicity, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of both administration routes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies comparing the efficacy of oral versus subcutaneous MTX administration in IMIDs have revealed contradicting results. Some reported higher efficacy with subcutaneous administration, while others found no significant difference. Regarding toxicity, some studies have challenged the notion that subcutaneous administration is better tolerated than oral administration, while others have supported this. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest higher plasma bioavailability and increased accumulation of MTX-polyglutamates (MTX-PGs) in red blood cells (RBCs) with subcutaneous administration during the initial treatment phase. However, after several months, similar intracellular drug levels are observed with both administration routes. There is no conclusive evidence supporting the superiority of either oral or subcutaneous MTX administration in terms of efficacy and adverse events in IMIDs. Subcutaneous administration leads to higher plasma bioavailability and initial accumulation of MTX-PGs in RBCs, but the difference seems to disappear over time. Given the variable findings, the choice of administration route may be based on shared decision-making, offering patients the option of either oral or subcutaneous administration of MTX based on individual preferences and tolerability. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of MTX-PGs in various blood cells and TDM on treatment response and adherence to MTX therapy.
