Skip to main content
Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation
Download PDF

Validation of Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire to measure methotrexate intolerance among rheumatoid arthritis Egyptian patients

Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation volume 51, Article number: 27 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune chronic inflammatory disease, causing progressive disability. Methotrexate (MTX) is the gold standard drug treatment for RA. Long-term use of MTX is associated with intolerance including gastrointestinal effects. In addition, anticipatory, associative, and behavioral symptoms such as anxiety and irritability are also observed which are often inadequately managed, leading to discontinuation of treatment. Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire designed to measure MTX intolerance. The work aims to validate the MISS questionnaire Arabic version for the detection of MTX intolerance among Egyptian RA patients to halt the progression of the disease.

Results

A total of 80 patients were involved in this study. Of those, 67 (83.8%) were females with a mean disease duration of 6.9 ± 6.1 years. Forty-eight patients (60%) were intolerant to MTX and 32 patients (40%) were tolerant. Comparison between the tolerant group (n = 32) to MTX and the intolerant group (n = 48) revealed a statistically significant difference between them regarding the DAS28 score and HAQ score. Behavioral intolerance is the predominant factor that directs MTX intolerance.

Conclusion

The MISS questionnaire has a good predictive ability to detect MTX intolerance among Egyptian RA patients. Due to its good reliability, serves as an invaluable tool as it detects anticipatory and associative symptoms.

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease with a detrimental effect on quality of life due to irreversible joint damage [1]. Methotrexate (MTX) is the gold standard prescribed conventional synthetic (CS) Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) based on their efficacy, safety, and route of administration. It is endorsed as an initial treatment, as an “anchor drug” in combination with csDMARD, biological DMARD, or targeted synthetic DMARD [2].

MTX inhibits dihydrofolate reductase which is the enzyme required for purine and pyrimidine synthesis [3] causing uncoupling of nitric oxide synthase which increases apoptosis of T cells [4, 5]. It employs anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting transmethylation reactions required for cellular functions with diminished synovial damage and enhances adenosine release causing inhibition of neutrophil recruitment [6].

The half-life of MTX is short about 6 h [6]. Its adverse effects that could limit its use [7] include nausea, vomiting, stomachache, dizziness, and headache termed “MTX intolerance” as occurred in juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease [8]. Thus, evaluating MTX intolerance to improve patient tolerability is critical [9].

Symptoms may be anticipatory prior to intake, associative when thinking about consuming the drug, or behavioral as anxiety and irritability arising as a conditioned response may develop [10].

MTX Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire considers the patient intolerant if the score is ≥ 6 [9]. The Arabic version was validated in Saudi Arabian RA patients [11].

Our objective was to validate the MISS questionnaire Arabic version for the detection of MTX intolerance among Egyptian RA patients to halt the progression of the disease.

Material and methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 80 adult RA patients who were diagnosed according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria (ACR/EULAR) criteria [12] and were on regular use of MTX therapy for at least 3 months.

The study was carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki), the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the hospital and informed written consent was obtained from participants in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Patients suffered from gastrointestinal diseases (such as malignancy or celiac disease), and psychiatric illnesses and were unable to fully understand or unwilling to complete the MISS questionnaire.

Clinical evaluation

Full medical history taking with special concern about MTX dose, duration, route of administration, folic acid dose, other DMARDs, steroids dose, and antiemetic drug.

Thorough clinical examination using disease activity score 28(DAS28) [13]. Laboratory investigations: complete blood count with differential count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), liver function test (AST and ALT), and renal function tests (serum urea, creatinine).

Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) for daily activities of living

Which comprises 20 questions grouped into 8 subscales and the question’s highest score determines the score for the subscale [14].

Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire (Arabic version)

It is a 12-item questionnaire constructed to assess MTX intolerance covering 4 aspects of intolerance: stomachache, nausea, vomiting, and behavioral complaints. Its score ranges from 0 to 36 and the patient is considered intolerant if the score is ≥ 6 points with at least 1 point in the anticipatory, associative, and/or behavioral symptoms [11].

Statistical analysis

Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using SPSS, version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Quantitative data were described as mean and standard deviation/median and interquartile range. Independent t test was used to compare quantitative data between independent groups. Qualitative data were expressed as frequencies (n) and percentages (%). Fisher’s exact test was used to the relation between qualitative variables. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to correlate between parametric quantitative variables. Logistic regression analysis was done for the detection of variables independently affecting the occurrence of MTX intolerance. Reliability analysis was done by alpha (Cronbach’s) coefficient. P value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Eighty patients were included, their age was [Mean ± SD (min–max)] 45 ± 11 (23–72) years, disease duration was 6.9 ± 6.1 (1–35) years, DAS28 was 4.72 ± 1.28 (2.16–7.6) as 3 (3.8%) were in remission, 6 (7.5%) were of low disease activity, 47 (58.8%) were of moderate disease activity and 24 (30.0%) were of high disease activity. HAQ score was 1.358 ± 0.658 (0.125–2.625). Demographic data can be found in Table 1 and laboratory data in Table 2.

Table 1 Demographic data of patients
Full size table
Table 2 Laboratory data of patients
Full size table

MTX treatment duration was 5 ± 5 (1–23) years, the most common MTX route was subcutaneous (SC) 55(68.8%) followed by intramuscular (IM) then oral. Drug history among the studied RA patients (Table 3).

Table 3 Drug history among the studied RA patients
Full size table

Forty-eight patients (60%) were intolerant to MTX, and 32 patients (40%) were tolerant. Intolerant patients were 41 (72.9%) female patients and 7 (27.08%) male patients. The most frequently occurring complaint was a refusal to take MTX detected in 56 patients (70%) and 45 patients complained of restlessness (56.3%) followed by nausea after taking MTX occurred in 39 patients (49.5%). Vomiting complaint was the least frequent symptom that occurred in 16 patients (20%) who had vomiting after taking MTX and 7 patients (8.8%) of them had anticipatory symptoms. Distribution of MISS items and scores among the studied RA patients (Table 4).

Table 4 Distribution of MISS items and scores among the studied RA patients
Full size table

A statistically significant positive correlation of the MISS questionnaire with the HAQ score was detected (r = 0.298, p value = 0.007), but no correlation was found with the DAS28 score (r = 0.171, p value = 0.130).

Comparison between the tolerant group (n = 32) to MTX and the intolerant group (n = 48) detected a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between them regarding the DAS28 score and HAQ score. There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding marital status, menstrual history, education, or job (p > 0.05). Comparison between MTX tolerant and intolerant groups (Table 5).

Table 5 Comparison between MTX tolerant and intolerant groups
Full size table

Logistic regression detected that RF significantly (p < 0.05) increases the risk of MTX intolerance by 0.024 times (Table 6). The reliability of the MISS questionnaire was 0.809 suggesting good internal consistency.

Table 6 Logistic regression for detection of independent variables associated with MTX intolerance
Full size table

Discussion

Management of RA focuses on improving the quality of life as it is an irreversible disease [2]. So, early detection of MTX intolerance is essential and easy as the MISS is a simple and objective questionnaire [15].

If intolerance is due to gastrointestinal symptoms folic acid intake, dose splitting, and shift from oral to parenteral route is considered [16] and if it is due to behavioral symptoms, patient counseling is important [11].

In Egyptian RA patients, 60% of the participants were MTX-intolerant which was higher than the Albaqami et al. [11] study conducted on 185 Saudi Arabian RA and found that 39.5% of them were intolerant. Also, a study on 150 Brazilian RA patients found a prevalence of MTX intolerance of 21.6% [17].

Our findings could be due to a behavioral intolerance, as the MTX is categorized as a chemotherapeutic drug with a negative psychological impression which was supported by the findings in Albaqami et al. [11] as they identified a higher percentage of behavioral intolerance compared to gastrointestinal intolerance.

Also, the higher percentage of intolerance in our study may be due to anticipatory and associative gastrointestinal symptoms which were considered as a conditioned response [18] and could be explained by increased sensitivity of gastrointestinal epithelium due to the buildup of MTX causing nausea and vomiting [10, 19] and its stimulation to adenosine receptors in the central nervous system [20, 21] and chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ) leading to reflex vomiting [22, 23]. Contrary to Amaral et al. [17], all the patients reported nausea followed by abdominal pain, and then vomiting. Therefore, Cognitive behavioral therapy may benefit in the treatment [8].

Our study included more intolerant female patients than male patients. Similarly, Almalag et al. 2020 assumed that MTX intolerance was linked to the female gender [24] which could be explained by a lower average glomerular filtration rate in females than males. But as the lower percentage of male gender was included in our study, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution. Also, Bulatović Ćalasan et al. [9] study included 291 RA and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who reported more intolerance in females, but it was statistically insignificant.

Regarding caffeine, no association was detected between MTX intolerance and caffeine in our study. While El Nouby et al. [25] and Malaviya [26] reported that caffeine reduced the severe MTX intolerance symptoms which could be explained by that caffeine antagonizes the MTX activation of adenosine receptors in the central nervous system.

We noticed a significant difference in the DAS28 score between the intolerant group and the tolerant group as it was correlated with disease severity. Regarding HAQ, there was a significant positive correlation with MISS score which could be explained by increased level of non-adherence to MTX and missed doses by the patients due to its effect on behavior and gastrointestinal tract. Also, Sherbini et al. [27] noticed an increased risk of MTX cessation after 1-year follow-up due to adverse effects correlated with a high baseline HAQ [28].

In our study, the most common MTX route was SC followed by IM then oral and we noticed that patients on the SC route were more intolerant. Our findings were similar to Bulatovic et al. [8] and Bulatović Ćalasan et al. [29] who detected that more intolerance on parenteral than on oral MTX which could be due to hatred towards needles causing more behavioral symptoms in the parenteral group [30]. Albaqami et al. [11] and Almalag et al. [24] stated that oral intolerance was higher than the SC administration group.

Regarding MTX dose, patients treated with 20 or 25 mg MTX were more intolerant may be due to triggering the CTZ. Similarly, Fatimah et al. [15] noticed that the higher the dose, the more the intolerance.

In our study, there was a higher percentage of MTX intolerance associated with corticosteroid use. Similarly, Amaral et al. [17] stated that corticosteroids may have physiological gastroprotective and pathological proulcerogenic effects. The prolonged action of corticosteroids can be a significant factor in the gastric mucosa [31]. Also, Nalwa et al. [18] stated that the use of corticosteroid therapy is a predisposing factor for increased risk of MTX intolerance.

Regarding other drugs combined with MTX doses, there was no significant relation with MTX intolerance which corresponds with Almalag et al. [24] and Fatimah et al. [15]. Also, our study was in accordance with Amaral et al. [17] as MTX intolerance was not linked with folic acid deficiency.

Our finding was in accordance with Majorczyk et al. [32] suggested a predictive value of RF for the MTX treatment outcome. In our study, the internal consistency of the MISS questionnaire was similar to Albaqami et al. [11] suggesting its reliability.

Limitations of the study included a small number of patients and most of them were females so other studies are needed with a larger number of male and female patients and explore different parameters such as types of food and different ethnicities.

Conclusion

The MISS questionnaire has a good predictive ability to detect MTX intolerance among Egyptian RA patients. Due to its good reliability, serves as an invaluable tool as it detects anticipatory and associative symptoms.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available on request.

Abbreviations

ACPA:

Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies

CBC:

Complete blood count

CRP:

C-reactive protein

CS:

Conventional synthetic

CTZ:

Chemoreceptor trigger zone

DAS28:

Disease Activity Score 28

DMARDs:

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

HAQ:

Health Assessment Questionnaire

MISS:

MTX Intolerance Severity Score

MTX:

Methotrexate

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

RF:

Rheumatoid factor

References

  1. Heinimann K, von Kempis J, Sauter R, Schi M, Sokka-Isler T, Schulze-Koops H (2018) Muller RLong-Term Increase of Radiographic Damage and Disability in Patients with RA in Relation to Disease Duration in the Era of Biologics. Results from the SCQM Cohort. J ClinMed. 7:57

    Google Scholar 

  2. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G, van der Heijde D (2010) Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 69(4):631–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rushworth D, Mathews A, Alpert A, Cooper LJ (2015) Dihydrofolate reductase and thymidylate synthase transgenes resistant to methotrexate interact to permit novel transgene regulation. J Biol Chem 290(38):22970–22976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Crabtree MJ, Tatham AL, Hale AB, Alp NJ, Channon KM (2009) Critical role for tetrahydrobiopterin recycling by dihydrofolate reductase in regulation of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase coupling: relative importance of the de novo biopterin synthesis versus salvage pathways. J Biol Chem 284(41):28128–28136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sugiyama T, Levy BD, Michel T (2009) Tetrahydrobiopterin recycling, a key determinant of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase-dependent signaling pathways in cultured vascular endothelial cells. J Biol Chem 284(19):12691–12700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cronstein BN, Aune TM (2020) Methotrexate and its mechanisms of action in inflammatory arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 16(3):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-020-0373-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr, Akl EA, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, McAlindon T (2016) 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & rheumatology 68(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bulatović M, Heijstek MW, Verkaaik M, van Dijkhuizen EP, Armbrust W, Hoppenreijs EP, Wulffraat NM (2011) High prevalence of methotrexate intolerance in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: development and validation of a methotrexate intolerance severity score. Arthritis Rheum 63(7):2007–2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.30367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vijaykumar D, Dhir V, Jain S, Pai V, Kaur J, Naidu GS, Jain S (2021) Assessing methotrexate intolerance and its prevalence in rheumatoid arthritis: development and validation of the MISA questionnaire. Int J Rheum Dis 24(10):1294–1301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunner HI, Johnson AL, Barron AC, Passo MH, Griffin TA, Graham TB, Lovell DJ (2005) Gastrointestinal symptoms and their association with health-related quality of life of children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a gastrointestinal symptom questionnaire. J Clin Rheumatol 11(4):194–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Albaqami J, Alshalhoub R, Almalag H, Dessougi M, Al Harthi A, Bedaiwi MK, Omair MA (2019) Prevalence of methotrexate intolerance among patients with rheumatoid arthritis using the Arabic version of the methotrexate intolerance severity score. Int J Rheum Dis 22(8):1572–1577. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO III, Hawker G (2010) 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 62(9):2569–2581. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.27584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wells G, Becker JC, Teng J, Dougados M, Schiff M, Smolen J, Van Riel PLCM (2009) Validation of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria based on C-reactive protein against disease progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and comparison with the DAS28 based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Ann Rheum Dis 68(6):954–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. El Meidany YM, El Gaafary MM, Ahmed I (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of an Arabic Health Assessment Questionnaire for use in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Joint Bone Spine 70(3):195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1297-319X(03)00004-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fatimah N, Salim B, Nasim A, Hussain K, Gul H, Niazi S (2016) Frequency of methotrexate intolerance in rheumatoid arthritis patients using methotrexate intolerance severity score (MISS questionnaire). Clin Rheumatol 35(5):1341–1345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3243-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Albrecht K, M ler-Ladner U (2010) Side effects and management of side effects of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol-Incl Suppl 28(5):S95

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Amaral JM, Brito MJM, Kakehasi AM (2020) High frequency of methotrexate intolerance in longstanding rheumatoid arthritis: using the methotrexate intolerance severity score (MISS). Adv Rheumatol 60(1):43

  18. Nalwa HS, Prasad P, Ganguly NK, Chaturvedi V, Mittal SA (2023) Methotrexate intolerance in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Translational Medicine Communications 8(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Genestier L, Paillot R, Quemeneur L, Izeradjene K, Revillard JP (2000) Mechanisms of action of methotrexate. Immunopharmacology 47(2–3):247–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen JF, Eltzschig HK, Fredholm BB (2013) Adenosine receptors as drug targets—what are the challenges? Nat Rev Drug Discov 12(4):265–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3955

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Paul S, H Elsinga P, Ishiwata K, AJO Dierckx R, Van Waarde A (2011) Adenosine A1 receptors in the central nervous system: their functions in health and disease, and possible elucidation by PET imaging. Curr Med Chem. 18(31):4820–4835

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tian H, Cronstein BN (2007) Understanding the mechanisms of action of methotrexate. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 65(3):168–173

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Becker ML, Rose CD, Cron RQ, Sherry DD, Bilker WB, Lautenbach E (2010) Effectiveness and toxicity of methotrexate in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: comparison of 2 initial dosing regimens. J Rheumatol 37(4):870–875

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Almalag H, Abouzaid HH, Alnaim L, Albaqami J, Al Shalhoub R, Almaghlouth I, Omair MA (2020) Risk factors associated with methotrexate intolerance in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Open Access Rheumatol: Research and Reviews:193–202. https://doi.org/10.2147/OARRR.S263287

  25. Nouby FH EL, Fathi NA, Fehr AA, Assi AA, Lotfy RM, Goma SH (2020) Does caffeine reduce methotrexate intolerance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled study. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 47:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Malaviya AN (2017) Methotrexate intolerance in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA): effect of adding caffeine to the management regimen. Clin Rheumatol 36:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3398-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sherbini AA, Sharma SD, Gwinnutt JM, Hyrich KL, Verstappen SM (2021) Prevalence and predictors of adverse events with methotrexate mono-and combination-therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology 60(9):4001–4017. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keab304

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hider SL, Silman AJ, Thomson W, Lunt M, Bunn D, Symmons DP (2009) Can clinical factors at presentation be used to predict outcome of treatment with methotrexate in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis? Ann Rheum Dis 68(1):57–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bulatović Ćalasan M, van den Bosch OF, Creemers MC, Custers M, Heurkens AH, van Woerkom JM, Wulffraat NM (2013) Prevalence of methotrexate intolerance in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 68(1):57–62. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.088237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Visser K, Katchamart W, Loza E, Martinez-Lopez JA, Salliot C, Trudeau J, Dougados M (2009) Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 68(7):1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.094474

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Filaretova L, Podvigina T, Yarushkina N (2020) Physiological and pharmacological effects of glucocorticoids on the gastrointestinal tract. Curr Pharm Des 26(25):2962–2970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Majorczyk E, Mazurek-Mochol M, Pawlik A, Kuśnierczyk P (2022) Clinical factors and the outcome of treatment with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: role of rheumatoid factor, erosive disease and high level of erythrocyte sedimentation rate. J Clin Med 11(20):6078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the patients who volunteered to participate in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology, Rehabilitation & Physical Medicine, El Galaa Teaching Hospital, Cairo, Egypt

    Hagar Ahmed Tawfik Kabil

  2. Department of Rheumatology, Rehabilitation & Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Nahed Mounir Sherif, Mona Gamal Eldin Elhusseiny & Mary Atef Nassif

Authors
  1. Hagar Ahmed Tawfik Kabil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nahed Mounir Sherif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mona Gamal Eldin Elhusseiny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary Atef Nassif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HATK was responsible for the following tasks: provided an idea, data collection, writing the first draught, contributing to the work’s design, clinical work, and data interpretation. NMS completed the following tasks: placed the study design, followed the patients, and revised the draught paper. MGE did the following: formal evaluation, data collection, editing and reviewing the draught, clinical work, data interpretation, and revising. MAN did the following: data collection, writing the first draught, editing, and reviewing it; contributing to the work’s design; and participating in conceptualization, formal analysis, data interpretation, and revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Atef Nassif.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Ain Shams University (FMASU MS 333/2022), and informed written consent was obtained from participants in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kabil, H.A.T., Sherif, N.M., Elhusseiny, M.G.E. et al. Validation of Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire to measure methotrexate intolerance among rheumatoid arthritis Egyptian patients. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 51, 27 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43166-024-00261-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43166-024-00261-w

Keywords