Azathioprine is more effective than mesalazine at preventing recurrent bowel obstruction in patients with ileocecal Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with subocclusive Crohn's disease (CD) who received azathioprine (AZA) therapy had lower re-hospitalization rates due to all causes and for surgical management of CD compared to those treated with mesalazine during a 3-year period. We investigated whether AZA also was effective for prevention of recurrent bowel obstruction. MATERIAL/METHODS: Rates of recurrent bowel occlusion were compared between patients treated with AZA and those treated with mesalazine. We assessed the time interval-off intestinal obstruction as well as the occlusion-free survival for both groups. RESULTS: There was a significantly lower cumulative rate of patients with recurrent subocclusion in the AZA group (56%) compared with the mesalazine group (79%; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.67-8.6; P=0.003), with the number needed to treat in order to prevent 1 subocclusion episode of 3.7 favoring AZA. The occlusion-free time interval was longer in the AZA group compared with the mesalazine group (28.8 vs. 18.3 months; P=0.000). The occlusion-free survival at 12, 24, and 36 months was significantly higher in the AZA group (91%, 81%, and 72%, respectively) than in the mesalazine group (64.7%, 35.3%, and 23.5%, respectively; P<0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In an exploratory analysis of patients with subocclusive ileocecal CD, maintenance therapy with AZA is more effective than mesalazine for eliminating or postponing recurrent intestinal obstruction during 3 years of therapy.

Effect of azathioprine or mesalazine therapy on incidence of re-hospitalization in sub-occlusive ileocecal Crohn's disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the cost of Crohn's disease (CD) treatment differs considerably, hospitalization and surgery costs account for most of the total treatment cost. Decreasing hospitalization and surgery rates are pivotal issues in reducing health-care costs. MATERIAL/METHODS We evaluated the effect of azathioprine (AZA) compared with mesalazine on incidence of re-hospitalizations due to all causes and for CD-related surgeries. In this controlled, randomized study, 72 subjects with sub-occlusive ileocecal CD were randomized for AZA (2-3 mg/kg per day) or mesalazine (3.2 g per day) therapy during a 3-year period. The primary end point was the re-hospitalization proportion due to all causes, as well as for surgical procedures during this period evaluated between the groups. RESULTS: On an intention-to-treat basis, the proportion of patients re-hospitalized within 36 months due to all causes was lower in patients treated with AZA compared to those on mesalazine (0.39 vs. 0.83, respectively; p=0.035). The AZA group had also significantly lower proportions of re-hospitalization for surgical intervention (0.25 vs. 0.56, respectively; p=0.011). The number of admissions (0.70 vs. 1.41, p=0.001) and the length of re-hospitalization (3.8 vs. 7.7 days; p=0.002) were both lower in AZA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sub-occlusive ileocecal CD treated with AZA had lower re-hospitalization rates due to all causes and for surgical management of CD compared to those treated with mesalazine during a 3-year period. The long-term use of AZA in ileocecal CD patients recovering from a sub-occlusion episode can save healthcare costs.