Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 22;2017(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2
Methods RCT, active‐controlled, open‐label trial
Date of study: Feb 2002‐Feb 2005
Location: multicentre (n = 5), Sweden
Participants Randomised: 84 participants (mean age: 48 years (methotrexate), 46 years (ciclosporin); 55 male)
Inclusion criteria
  • Participants with moderate‐severe psoriasis

  • Age ≥18

  • Non response to topical treatment

  • Non‐response to phototherapy

  • One previous treatment line allowed


  • Exclusion criteria

  • Pregnancy, immunodepression, kidney insufficiency, liver insufficiency

  • Had uncontrolled hypertension

  • Had past history of malignant tumours


Dropouts and withdrawals
  • 16/84 (19%): methotrexate group (4), ciclosporin group (12)

  • 7 with exclusion criteria: methotrexate group (2), ciclosporin group (5)

  • 7 consent withdrawal: methotrexate group (2), ciclosporin group (5)

  • 2 ineligible: ciclosporin group

Interventions Intervention
A. Methotrexate + folic acid (n = 41), orally, 7.5 mg/kg /week (5 mg folic acid except days of methotrexate), 12 weeks
Control intervention
B. Ciclosporin (n = 43), orally, 3 mg/kg, divided into 2 doses, 12 weeks
Outcomes Assessments at 12 weeks
Primary outcomes of the trial
  • PASI


Secondary outcomes of the trial
  • DLQI

  • SF‐36

  • VAS for patient assessment

Notes Funding (p121): "Financial support from the Swedish Psoriasis Association and the Welander foundation"
Declarations of interest (p116): "none declared"
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote (p 117): "Randomization was performed with the use of computer‐generated random numbers, numbers by calling a central telephone number"
Comment: probably done
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Quote (p 117): "Randomization was performed with the use of computer‐generated random numbers, numbers by calling a central telephone number"
Comment: probably done
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes High risk Comment: not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Quote (p 117): "Blinded assessors performed the PASI at baseline and monthly thereafter"
Comment: no description of method used to guarantee no communication between care givers or participants and assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes High risk Randomly assigned 84, analysed 68
Management of missing data: not ITT analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Comment: no protocol was available. The pre‐specified outcomes mentioned in the methods section appeared to have been reported