Evaluation of tolerance to mercaptopurine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and gastrointestinal intolerance to azathioprine / Evaluación de la tolerancia a la mercaptopurina en los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal e intolerancia gastrointestinal a la azatioprina

Background Thiopurines such as azathioprine (AZA) and mercaptopurine (MP) are commonly utilized to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Their use is frequently restricted due to gastrointestinal intolerance (GI). Previous retrospective studies have reported that AZA-intolerant patients may benefit from a switch to MP; yet the effectiveness of this strategy has not been prospectively evaluated.AimsTo assess GI tolerance to MP in patients who are intolerant to AZA, and to identify clinical predictors of GI intolerance to AZA or MP.MethodsA prospective, observational, single-cohort study was performed in 92 thiopurine-naïve IBD patients. They were started on a 50mg dose of AZA and escalated to 2.5mg/kg per day by week 2. Those with GI intolerance were rechallenged with a 50% dose of AZA, after which another dose escalation attempt was made. If symptoms persisted, they were switched to MP.ResultsThirty (32.6%) of the recruited patients suffered from GI intolerance to AZA. Of these, 15 did not present recurrence of symptoms after rechallenge with lower doses. Of 15 intolerant patients, 14 were switched to MP. Within the MP cohort, 8 patients (57%) were also intolerant to MP, 5 (36%) had no symptoms, and 1 (7%) was lost to follow-up. Female gender was the only independent predictor of GI intolerance to AZA.ConclusionsUp to half of the AZA-intolerant patients tolerated a 50% dose rechallenge that was successfully escalated. A switch to MP was tolerated in over a third of cases whom rechallenge failed. Our strategy (challenge–rechallenge–switch) achieved an overall GI tolerance to thiopurines in most of the patients. (AU)

Antecedentes Las tiopurinas como la azatioprina (AZA) y la mercaptopurina (MP) se utilizan comúnmente para tratar la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII). Su uso está frecuentemente restringido debido a la intolerancia gastrointestinal. Estudios retrospectivos anteriores han informado que los pacientes intolerantes a la AZA pueden beneficiarse de un cambio a MP; sin embargo, la eficacia de esta estrategia no ha sido evaluada prospectivamente.ObjetivosEvaluar la tolerancia gastrointestinal a MP en pacientes que son intolerantes a AZA e identificar predictores clínicos de intolerancia gastrointestinal a AZA o MP.MétodosSe realizó un estudio prospectivo, observacional y de cohorte única en 92 pacientes con EII que nunca habían recibido tiopurinas. Comenzaron con una dosis de 50mg de AZA y se aumentó a 2,5mg/kg por día en la semana 2. En aquellos con intolerancia gastrointestinal se administró una dosis del 50% de AZA que se fue incrementando en función de la tolerancia. Si los síntomas persistían, se cambiaba a MP.ResultadosTreinta (32,6%) de los pacientes reclutados presentaron intolerancia gastrointestinal a la AZA. De estos, 15 no presentaron recurrencia de los síntomas después de la nueva exposición. De los 15 pacientes que no toleraron una dosis más baja, 14 recibieron MP. De los que recibieron MP, 8 pacientes (57%) también eran intolerantes a MP, 5 (36%) no tenían síntomas y uno (7%) se perdió durante el seguimiento. El género femenino fue el único predictor independiente de intolerancia gastrointestinal a la AZA.ConclusionesHasta la mitad de los pacientes intolerantes a la AZA toleran una nueva exposición al 50% de la dosis. Se toleró un cambio a MP en más de un tercio de los casos en los que la reexposición fracasó. Nuestra estrategia logró la tolerancia gastrointestinal a tiopurinas en la mayoría de los pacientes. (AU)

Association of systemic lupus erythematosus standard of care immunosuppressants with glucocorticoid use and disease outcomes: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the association of standard-of-care systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) medications with key outcomes such as low disease activity attainment, flares, damage accrual, and steroid-sparing, for which there is current paucity of data. METHODS: The Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) prospectively collects data across numerous sites regarding demographic and disease characteristics, medication use, and lupus outcomes. Using propensity score methods and panel logistic regression models, we determined the association between lupus medications and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1707 patients followed over 12,689 visits for a median of 2.19 years, 1332 (78.03%) patients achieved the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), 976 (57.18%) experienced flares, and on most visits patients were taking an anti-malarial (69.86%) or immunosuppressive drug (76.37%). Prednisolone, hydroxychloroquine and azathioprine were utilised with similar frequency across all organ domains; methotrexate for musculoskeletal activity. There were differences in medication utilisation between countries, with hydroxychloroquine less frequently, and calcineurin inhibitors more frequently, used in Japan. More patients taking leflunomide, methotrexate, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid were taking ≤ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone (compared to > 7.5 mg/day) suggesting a steroid-sparing effect. Patients taking tacrolimus were more likely (Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] 13.58 [2.23-82.78], p = 0.005) to attain LLDAS. Patients taking azathioprine (OR 0.67 [0.53-0.86], p = 0.001) and methotrexate (OR 0.68 [0.47-0.98], p = 0.038) were less likely to attain LLDAS. Patients taking mycophenolate mofetil were less likely to experience a flare (OR 0.79 [0.64-0.97], p = 0.025). None of the drugs was associated with a reduction in damage accrual. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a steroid-sparing benefit for most commonly used standard of care immunosuppressants used in SLE treatment, some of which were associated with an increased likelihood of attaining LLDAS, or reduced incidence of flares. It also highlights the unmet need for effective treatments in lupus.

Comparison of methotrexate and azathioprine as the first-line steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents in patients with Takayasu's arteritis.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive (IS) agents are recommended for the first-line treatment of patients with active Takayasu's arteritis (TAK) together with glucocorticoids (GCs). However, there is limited data comparing the efficacy and outcomes of different IS agents for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of two most frequently used first-line IS agents, namely methotrexate (MTX) and azathioprine (AZA) in TAK patients. METHODS: TAK patients who received any IS agent in addition to GCs as the initial therapy were included in this multicentre, retrospective cohort study. Clinical, laboratory and imaging data of the patients were assessed. In addition, a matched analysis (cc match) using variables 'age', 'gender' and 'diffuse aortic involvement' was performed between patients who received MTX or AZA as the first-line IS treatment. RESULTS: We recruited 301 patients (F/M: 260/41, mean age: 42.2 ± 13.3 years) from 10 tertiary centres. As the first-line IS agent, 204 (67.8 %) patients received MTX, and 77 (25.6 %) received AZA. Less frequently used IS agents included cyclophosphamide in 17 (5.6 %), leflunomide in 2 (0.5 %) and mycophenolate mofetil in one patient. The remission, relapse, radiographic progression and adverse effect rates were similar between patients who received MTX and AZA as the first-line IS agent. Vascular surgery rate was significantly higher in the AZA group (23% vs. 9 %, p = 0.001), whereas the frequency of patients receiving ≤5 mg/day GCs at the end of the follow-up was significantly higher in the MTX group (76% vs 62 %, p = 0.034). Similarly, the rate of vascular surgery was higher in AZA group in matched analysis. Drug survival was similar between MTX and AZA groups (median 48 months, MTX vs AZA: 32% vs 42 %, p = 0.34). IS therapy was discontinued in 18 (12 MTX, 6 AZA) patients during the follow-up period due to remission. Among those patients, two patients had a relapse at 2 and 6 months, while 16 patients were still on remission at the end of a mean 69.4 (±50.9) months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Remission, relapse, radiographic progression and drug survival rates of AZA and MTX were similar for patients with TAK receiving an IS agent as the first-line f therapy. The rate of vascular surgery was higher and the rate of GC dose reduction was lower with AZA compared to MTX at the end of the follow-up.

Filgrastim Use in the Treatment of Azathioprine-Induced Myelosuppression Toxicity After Prescription Error in the Feline.

Only one report on the successful use of filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in cats for severe neutropenia following azathioprine toxicity exists. Here, we report on a case in which a cat was prescribed methimazole but the medication was filled incorrectly with azathioprine tablets and the prescription label indicated a methimazole dosing regimen that was administered for three days before recognition of the error. On presentation, the cat's physical examinations were consistent with previous examinations before ingestion of azathioprine. A complete blood cell count revealed neutropenia and leukopenia. The cat later developed hyporexia, dehydration, and vomiting. Treatment included antinausea and appetite stimulant medications, filgrastim, and antibiotics. Filgrastim given as subcutaneous injections over the course of treatment increased neutrophil cell counts after suppression. The cat made a full recovery after responding to the treatment protocol. Based on the perceived response to filgrastim in this single feline case report, its use can be considered for the treatment of azathioprine-induced neutropenia in cats.

Mycophenolate and methotrexate are better tolerated than azathioprine in myasthenia gravis.

Azathioprine is recommended as the first-line steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agent for myasthenia gravis. Mycophenolate and methotrexate are often considered as second-line choices despite widespread consensus on their efficacy. We aimed to gather real-world data comparing the tolerability and reasons for discontinuation for these agents, by performing a national United Kingdom survey of side effects and reasons for discontinuation of immunosuppressants in myasthenia gravis. Of 235 patients, 166 had taken azathioprine, 102 mycophenolate, and 40 methotrexate. The most common side effects for each agent were liver dysfunction for azathioprine (23 %), diarrhoea for mycophenolate (14 %), and fatigue for methotrexate (18 %). Women were generally more likely to experience side effects of immunosuppressants. Azathioprine was significantly more likely to be discontinued than mycophenolate and methotrexate due to side effects. There was no significant difference in treatment cessation due to lack of efficacy. This study highlights the significant side-effect burden of treatment for myasthenia gravis. Mechanisms to reduce azathioprine toxicity should be utilised, however mycophenolate and methotrexate appear to be good treatment choices if teratogenicity is not a concern. Women are disadvantaged due to higher frequency of side effects and considerations around pregnancy and breastfeeding. Treatments with improved tolerability are needed.

Enteric-coated Mycophenolate Sodium therApy versus cyclophosphamide for induction of Remission in Microscopic PolyAngiitis (EMSAR-MPA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have demonstrated that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be an excellent alternative to cyclophosphamide (CYC) or rituximab for the induction of remission in non-life-threatening anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies associated vasculitis because of its strong immunosuppressive potency and low toxicity profile. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) was introduced to reduce gastrointestinal adverse reactions of MMF. This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of EC-MPS combined with glucocorticoid in patients with active and non-life-threatening microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 110 patients with active and non-life-threatening MPA from 11 hospitals in Shanxi Province of China will be recruited and randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either EC-MPS or CYC. All patients will receive the same glucocorticoid plan. We will compare oral EC-MPS (720-1440 mg/day) with intravenous pulsed CYC (7.5-15 mg/kg) administered for 3-6 months. All patients will be switched from their assigned treatment (EC-MPS or CYC) to oral azathioprine (2 mg/kg/day) after remission has been achieved, between 3 and 6 months. Azathioprine will be continued until the study ends at 18 months. The primary end point of efficacy is the remission rate at 6 months. Follow-up will continue for 18 months in order to detect an influence of induction regimen on subsequent relapse rates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University (2022YX-026). All participants are required to provide written informed consent and no study-related procedures will be performed until consent is obtained. The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2200063823.

[Treatment of autoimmune hepatitis-First-line, second-line and third-line treatment]. / Therapie der Autoimmunhepatitis ­ Erst­, Zweit- und Drittlinientherapie.

Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a rare autoimmune inflammation of the liver mostly with a chronic course, which can also be acutely manifested up to acute liver failure. It affects women 3-4 times more frequently than men and can be diagnosed in all age groups. In one third of the patients a liver cirrhosis is present at the time of diagnosis. It is characterized by a hepatic inflammation pattern, a polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia of immunoglobulin G and the detection of autoantibodies. A liver biopsy is necessary to make the diagnosis. The AIH is histologically characterized in particular by a lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate in the portal fields. In cases with a relevant disease activity, AIH is typically treated by immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive treatment is associated with a prevention of disease progression to liver cirrhosis and a better survival. The success of treatment is measured by achieving biochemical remission, i.e., normalization of the transaminase and immunoglobulin G levels as a good noninvasive predictor of a histological remission. Another treatment target is an improvement of the symptoms of the patient. The first-line treatment consists of a glucocorticoid, mostly prednisolone or in cases without advanced fibrosis budesonide, and azothioprine. For reduction of steroid-specific treatment side effects the maintenance treatment should be carried out steroid-free whenever possible. In cases of insufficient response to azothioprine or side effects a treatment attempt using antimetabolites, such as 6­mercaptopurine or mycophenolate mofetil is primarily carried out as second-line treatment. For patients who do not achieve biochemical remission through first-line or second-line treatment, a variety of medications are available for third-line treatment, e.g., rituximab, calcineurin inhibitors or antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) antibodies. Third-line treatment should be carried out in expert centers and registered in the European Reference Network for Rare Liver Diseases in order to improve the currently sparse database for these forms of treatment in the future.

Simultaneous Presentation of Takayasu Arteritis and Crohn's Disease in a Middle-Aged Patient: Are they two sides of the same coin?

Autoimmune disorders have a wide spectrum of symptoms, often with multiorgan involvement. Multiple autoimmune disorders also often occur concurrently in the same patient. These two possibilities must be distinguished in patients with multiorgan involvement to ensure early diagnosis and treatment. Here, we report a case of a previously healthy man who presented with simultaneous Takayasu arteritis and Crohn's disease. He presented with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and severe aortic regurgitation. An echocardiogram demonstrated a greatly dilated aorta, and a diagnosis of Takayasu arteritis was made, confirmed with CT aortogram. Inpatient treatment was begun, but the patient subsequently developed bloody diarrhoea a few days after admission. Colonoscopy done to locate the source of bleeding showed colonic ulcers; a biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of Crohn's disease. The patient was successfully managed with medical management of heart failure, steroids, mesalamine and azathioprine, and has been in remission for the last 2 years.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose anti-thymocyte globulin versus basiliximab induction therapy in pediatric kidney transplant recipients: A retrospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of basiliximab (BAS) versus a single dose of anti-thymocyte globulin (r-ATG) induction therapy in pediatric kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). METHODS: This single-center retrospective comparative cohort study included all pediatric KTRs from May 2013 to April 2018 and followed up to 12 months. In the first period, all recipients received BAS, while from May 2016, a single 3 mg/kg dose of r-ATG was instituted. Maintenance therapy consisted of a calcineurin inhibitor plus prednisone plus azathioprine or mycophenolate. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were included (BAS, n = 113; r-ATG, n = 114). The main combination of immunosuppressive drugs was tacrolimus, prednisone, and azathioprine in both groups (87% vs. 88%, p = .718). Patients receiving r-ATG showed superior survival-free of the composite endpoint (acute rejection, graft loss, or death; 76% vs. 61%, p = .003; HR 2.08, 1.29-3.34, p = .003) and lower incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (10% vs. 21%, p = .015). There was no difference in the overall incidence of CMV infection (33% vs. 37%, p = .457), PTLD (1% vs. 3%, p = .309), 30-day hospital readmissions (24% vs. 23%, p = .847), and kidney function at 12 months (86 ± 29 vs. 84 ± 30 mL/min/1.73m2, p = .614). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that induction therapy with a single 3 mg/kg dose of r-ATG is associated with higher efficacy for preventing acute rejection and similar safety profile compared to BAS.

Are monoclonals the only panacea for treatment of aquaporin-4 positive NMOSD? Experience from a low-&middle-income (LMIC) region.

OBJECTIVE: A plethora of monoclonals have ushered up for NMOSD treatment. However, their limited availability and cost concerns poses a challenge for usage in developing nations. We compared relapse rates and disabilities among aquaporin-4 positive(AQP4+ve) patients on conventional immunosuppressants and rituximab in a tertiary referral center in southern India. METHODS: This was a chart review of AQP4+ve patients registered under national demyelination registry maintained at institute. AQP4+ve patients were included if they were on azathioprine, MMF, methotrexate for six months; cyclophosphamide for three months and rituximab for one month. RESULTS: 207 records were screened, 154 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Drugs used were azathioprine (70), MMF (34) and rituximab (33). All three drugs were non-inferior to each other in terms of ARR reduction. Median EDSS at last follow-up was significantly lower for azathioprine(2;IQR:0-5) and rituximab(2;IQR:0.5-5) than MMF(3.5;IQR:2-5.6), however azathioprine was associated with highest switch rate(34.3%) and was the only drug which required change because of intolerance. Failure rate was least for rituximab(27.3%).Patients on azathioprine and MMF required higher mean duration of concurrent steroids(7.8±7.7 and 4.56±2.17 months respectively) when compared to rituximab(2.77±1.38) and had more relapses due to steroid withdrawal. CONCLUSION: Initial treatment with azathioprine, MMF and rituximab is comparable in terms of ARR reduction. Findings suggest that choice may be guided by adverse event profile of drug, rather than efficacy per se. Concurrent treatment duration with steroids should also guide clinical decision. Switch to second immunomodulation in event of initial failure adds to efficacy benefit, irrespective of the drug chosen.

A systematic review of case series and clinical trials investigating systemic oral or injectable therapies for the treatment of vitiligo.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, tofacitinib, baricitinib, corticosteroids, statins, zinc, apremilast, etc., for treating vitiligo lesions. METHOD: Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were meticulously searched for studies spanning from 2010 to August 2023, focusing on systemic oral and injectable therapies for vitiligo, using comprehensive keywords and search syntaxes tailored to each database. Key data extracted included study design, treatment efficacy, patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety profiles. RESULTS: In a total of 42 included studies, oral mini-pulse corticosteroid therapy (OMP) was the subject of six studies (14.2%). Minocycline was the focus of five studies (11.9%), while methotrexate, apremilast, and tofacitinib each were examined in four studies (9.5%). Antioxidants and Afamelanotide were the subjects of three studies each (7.1%). Cyclosporine, simvastatin, oral zinc, oral corticosteroids (excluding OMP) and injections, and baricitinib were each explored in two studies (4.8%). Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and Alefacept were the subjects of one study each (2.4%). CONCLUSION: Systemic treatments for vitiligo have been successful in controlling lesions without notable side effects. OMP, Methotrexate, Azathioprine, Cyclosporine, Mycophenolate mofetil, Simvastatin, Apremilast, Minocycline, Afamelanotide, Tofacitinib, Baricitinib, Antioxidants, and oral/injectable corticosteroids are effective treatment methods. However, oral zinc and alefacept did not show effectiveness.

Mycophenolate and azathioprine efficacy in interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) are immunomodulatory treatments in interstitial lung disease (ILD). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of MMF or AZA on pulmonary function in ILD. DESIGN: Population included any ILD diagnosis, intervention included MMF or AZA treatment, outcome was delta change from baseline in per cent predicted forced vital capacity (%FVC) and gas transfer (diffusion lung capacity of carbon monoxide, %DLco). The primary endpoint compared outcomes relative to placebo comparator, the secondary endpoint assessed outcomes in treated groups only. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies were included. No language restrictions were applied. Retrospective studies and studies with high-dose concomitant steroids were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: The systematic search was performed on 9 May. Meta-analyses according to drug and outcome were specified with random effects, I2 evaluated heterogeneity and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evaluated certainty of evidence. Primary endpoint analysis was restricted to RCT design, secondary endpoint included subgroup analysis according to prospective observational or RCT design. RESULTS: A total of 2831 publications were screened, 12 were suitable for quantitative synthesis. Three MMF RCTs were included with no significant effect on the primary endpoints (%FVC 2.94, 95% CI -4.00 to 9.88, I2=79.3%; %DLco -2.03, 95% CI -4.38 to 0.32, I2=0.0%). An overall 2.03% change from baseline in %FVC (95% CI 0.65 to 3.42, I2=0.0%) was observed in MMF, and RCT subgroup summary estimated a 4.42% change from baseline in %DLCO (95% CI 2.05 to 6.79, I2=0.0%). AZA studies were limited. All estimates were considered very low certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There were limited RCTs of MMF or AZA and their benefit in ILD was of very low certainty. MMF may support preservation of pulmonary function, yet confidence in the effect was weak. To support high certainty evidence, RCTs should be designed to directly assess MMF efficacy in ILD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023423223.

Comparative effectiveness of azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis (PROMISE-MG): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction. Treatment typically includes symptomatic oral cholinesterase inhibitors, immunosuppression, and immunomodulation. In addition to corticosteroids, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil are the most frequently used immunosuppressants in North America. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two drugs, and to assess the effect of the dose and duration of treatment. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study at 19 academic centres in Canada and the USA. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with autoimmune myasthenia gravis, who were never treated with immunosuppressants. Treating clinicians determined the choice of medication, dose, follow-up intervals, and drug monitoring. Outcome measures and adverse events were recorded at each visit. We assessed two co-primary outcomes. The first was the patient-reported Myasthenia Gravis-Quality of Life 15-revised (MGQOL-15r) score, measured as the mean change from treatment initiation to the follow-up visit with the lowest score. A clinically meaningful reduction (CMR) in MGQOL-15r was defined as a 5-point decrease. The second was a composite clinical outcome of disease improvement (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Post-Intervention Status Minimal Manifestations or better) and low adverse event burden (defined as grade ≤1 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). We also compared these outcomes in patients receiving an adequate dose and duration of azathioprine (≥2 mg/kg per day for at least 12 months) or mycophenolate mofetil (≥2 g per day for at least 8 months) and a lower dose or shorter duration of these agents. We used propensity score weighting with generalised linear regression models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03490539). FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 167 patients were enrolled; 85 did not receive azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil and were excluded. Four were excluded from outcome analyses because they had scores of 0 on an outcome measure at treatment initiation. Of the 78 patients included in analyses, 47 received mycophenolate mofetil (median follow-up 25 months [IQR 13·5-31·5]) and 31 received azathioprine (median follow-up 20 months [IQR 13-30]). The mean change in MG-QOL15r was -10·4 (95% CI -18·9 to -1·3) with mycophenolate mofetil and -6·8 (-17·2 to 3·6) with azathioprine (mean difference -3·3, 95% CI -7·7 to 1·2; p=0·15). 38 (81%) of 47 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 18 (57%) of 31 receiving azathioprine had a CMR in MG-QOL15r (risk difference 24·0%; 95% CI -0·2 to 48·0; p=0·052). The clinical composite outcome was achieved in 22 (47·7%) of 47 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and nine (28·1%) of 31 who received azathioprine (risk difference 19·6%, 95% CI -4·9 to 44·2; p=0·12). Descriptive analysis did not find a difference in the proportion of patients reaching a CMR in MG-QOL15r between the adequate dose and duration group and the lower dose or shorter duration group. Adverse events occurred in 11 (32%) of 34 patients who received azathioprine and nine (19%) of 48 who received mycophenolate mofetil. The most frequent adverse events were hepatotoxicity with azathioprine (five [15%] of 34) and gastrointestinal disturbances (seven [15%] of 48) with mycophenolate mofetil. There were no study-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: More than half of patients treated with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil felt their quality of life improved; no difference in clinical outcomes was noted between the two drugs. Adverse events associated with azathioprine were potentially more serious than those with mycophenolate mofetil, although mycophenolate mofetil is teratogenic. Lower than recommended doses of azathioprine might be effective, with reduced dose-dependent adverse events. More comparative effectiveness studies are required to inform treatment choices in myasthenia gravis. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America.

Does anticoagulation in combination with immunosuppressive therapy prevent recurrent thrombosis in Behçet's disease?

Vascular involvement in Behçet's disease (BD) occurs in up to 50% of patients. The main mechanism of thrombosis is inflammation. Thus, immunosuppressants (IS) are the mainstay of therapy, and adding anticoagulation (AC) is controversial. In daily practice, we observed that patients who received AC in combination with IS experienced less recurrent thrombosis and decided to investigate our BD patients retrospectively. We hypothesized that adding AC to immunosuppressive therapy may lower the risk of recurrent thrombosis. Treatment at the time of first or recurrent thrombotic events was recorded. Events under the only IS and IS + AC treatments were compared. There were 40 patients (33 males). The most common types of first vascular events were deep vein thrombosis (77.5%) followed by pulmonary embolism (PE) (52.5%). One patient did not receive any treatment. Among the 39 patients, 32 received glucocorticoid and at least one of the azathioprine, or cyclophosphamide, anti-TNF, 5 received monotherapy with azathioprine, 1 received monotherapy with corticosteroid, and the remaining 1 received monotherapy with cyclophosphamide. In total, 22 patients (55%) experienced 27 recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. Two (7.4%) events while only on AC, 2 (7.4%) events while on AC + IS, and 15 (55.5%) events occurred while on only IS. Eight (19.6%) patients were not receiving any treatment during relapses. The recurrence rate was statistically significantly lower in the IS + AC treatment group compared to IS alone. In conclusion, IS are the mainstay of treatment for BD, and adding AC may help to lower the recurrence risk of thrombotic events.