A comparative analysis of tioguanine versus low-dose thiopurines combined with allopurinol in inflammatory bowel disease patients.
Adult
Allopurinol
/ administration & dosage
Cohort Studies
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Drug Therapy, Combination
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
/ drug therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Netherlands
/ epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Purines
/ administration & dosage
Registries
Thioguanine
/ administration & dosage
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics
ISSN: 1365-2036
Titre abrégé: Aliment Pharmacol Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8707234
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
10
02
2020
revised:
02
03
2020
accepted:
25
03
2020
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
20
11
2020
entrez:
28
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Both tioguanine and low-dose thiopurines combined with allopurinol (LDTA) can be considered for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) when conventional thiopurines fail due to adverse events. To compare the safety of tioguanine and LDTA in IBD patients. Inflammatory bowel disease patients who failed conventional thiopurines due to adverse events and initiated LDTA in standard care were identified in the prospective ICC Registry. IBD patients who failed conventional thiopurines due to adverse events and initiated tioguanine were enrolled in three university hospitals. Patients on concomitant biologicals were excluded. The primary outcome was discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: safety outcomes and surgery-, biological- and corticosteroid-free clinical remission (physician global assessment = 0) after 104 weeks. Both multiple logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to correct for confounders. In total, 182 IBD patients treated with tioguanine (n = 94) or LDTA (n = 88) were included with a median follow-up of 104 weeks (IQR 91-104). Of these, 19% (tioguanine: 20%, LDTA: 18%) of patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events. After adjusting for confounders, there were no differences in terms of discontinuation rate due to adverse events (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15-1.68, P = 0.26), adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44-1.81, P = 0.75), infections (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.40-2.73, P = 0.93), hospitalisations (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.64-6.23, P = 0.23) or clinical remission (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33-1.68, P = 0.48). All results are comparable with the propensity score matched cohort. Nineteen percent of IBD patients with prior failure to conventional thiopurines due to adverse events discontinued therapy with tioguanine or LDTA due to adverse events. Either therapy may be considered before escalating to biological therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Both tioguanine and low-dose thiopurines combined with allopurinol (LDTA) can be considered for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) when conventional thiopurines fail due to adverse events.
AIM
To compare the safety of tioguanine and LDTA in IBD patients.
METHODS
Inflammatory bowel disease patients who failed conventional thiopurines due to adverse events and initiated LDTA in standard care were identified in the prospective ICC Registry. IBD patients who failed conventional thiopurines due to adverse events and initiated tioguanine were enrolled in three university hospitals. Patients on concomitant biologicals were excluded. The primary outcome was discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: safety outcomes and surgery-, biological- and corticosteroid-free clinical remission (physician global assessment = 0) after 104 weeks. Both multiple logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to correct for confounders.
RESULTS
In total, 182 IBD patients treated with tioguanine (n = 94) or LDTA (n = 88) were included with a median follow-up of 104 weeks (IQR 91-104). Of these, 19% (tioguanine: 20%, LDTA: 18%) of patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events. After adjusting for confounders, there were no differences in terms of discontinuation rate due to adverse events (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15-1.68, P = 0.26), adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44-1.81, P = 0.75), infections (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.40-2.73, P = 0.93), hospitalisations (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.64-6.23, P = 0.23) or clinical remission (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33-1.68, P = 0.48). All results are comparable with the propensity score matched cohort.
CONCLUSION
Nineteen percent of IBD patients with prior failure to conventional thiopurines due to adverse events discontinued therapy with tioguanine or LDTA due to adverse events. Either therapy may be considered before escalating to biological therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32339331
doi: 10.1111/apt.15730
pmc: PMC7318327
doi:
Substances chimiques
Purines
0
Allopurinol
63CZ7GJN5I
Thioguanine
FTK8U1GZNX
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1076-1086Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(4):1047-53
pubmed: 16618398
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 15;362(15):1383-95
pubmed: 20393175
Per Med. 2012 Sep;9(7):707-725
pubmed: 29776272
Gastroenterology. 2011 Nov;141(5):1621-28.e1-5
pubmed: 21708105
J Crohns Colitis. 2020 Jan 1;14(1):33-45
pubmed: 31219157
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Sep;52(9):981-987
pubmed: 28554266
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Feb;19(2):363-9
pubmed: 22605661
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Jun;19(7):1404-10
pubmed: 23665964
Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;112(2):325-336
pubmed: 27922024
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Jul;50(1):40-53
pubmed: 31165509
J Crohns Colitis. 2020 Jan 1;14(1):4-22
pubmed: 31711158
Gastroenterology. 2000 Apr;118(4):705-13
pubmed: 10734022
J Clin Pharmacol. 2013 Feb;53(2):211-6
pubmed: 23436266
J Hepatol. 2005 Aug;43(2):303-9
pubmed: 15964660
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(1):11-14
pubmed: 30472233
Dig Liver Dis. 2018 Jul;50(7):682-688
pubmed: 29525182
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Apr;47(8):1092-1102
pubmed: 29468701
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Jun;51(11):1076-1086
pubmed: 32339331
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Oct 28;22(40):9012-9021
pubmed: 27833392
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(5):604-8
pubmed: 18415755
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr;106(4):674-84
pubmed: 21407178
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 May;107(5):1189-1199
pubmed: 31677154
Gut. 2020 Jul;69(7):1206-1212
pubmed: 31980448
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016 Sep;22(9):2112-20
pubmed: 27482972
Digestion. 2006;73(1):25-31
pubmed: 16493198
Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Mar;104(3):760-7
pubmed: 19174781
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jun;54(6):753-760
pubmed: 31203688
PLoS One. 2019 May 24;14(5):e0212157
pubmed: 31125338
Gut. 2002 Apr;50(4):485-9
pubmed: 11889067
Drug Discov Today. 2018 Jan;23(1):17-21
pubmed: 28867540
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Jul;50(1):54-65
pubmed: 31094013
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Aug;50(4):407-415
pubmed: 31359480
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2020 Feb;16(2):111-123
pubmed: 32090622
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Jul 15;24(2):331-42
pubmed: 16842460
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003 Jul;13(3):176-81
pubmed: 12903007
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016 Jul;22(7):1639-46
pubmed: 27271488