Frontiers in immunology · 2022
First Results From a Propensity Matching Trial of Mycophenolate Mofetil vs. Azathioprine in Treatment-Naive AIH Patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dalekos George N, Arvaniti Pinelopi, Gatselis Nikolaos K, Samakidou Anna, Gabeta Stella, Rigopoulou Eirini, Koukoulis George K, Zachou Kalliopi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: As previous real-world studies and meta-analyses have shown that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) might have better efficacy than azathioprine (AZA) in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), we conducted a propensity matching study to assess the efficacy and safety of MMF vs. AZA.
METHODS: All 126 consecutive treatment-naive adult AIH patients, diagnosed and followed in our department since 2016, were included. Patients received prednisolone 0.5-1 mg/kg/day plus either AZA 1-2 mg/kg/day or 1.5-2 g/day MMF. The tapering of prednisolone was identical between groups.
RESULTS: After propensity matching score and adjustment for known factors affecting response to treatment and outcome, 64 patients were included in the study (MMF = 32 and AZA = 32). Rates of non-response, complete biochemical response (CBR) at 6 and 12 months, and prednisolone withdrawal (6 months, 12 months, and end of follow-up) were identical between groups. However, MMF treatment was significantly associated with CBR at the end of follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 11.259; 95% CI: 1.3-97.4, p = 0.028]. AZA patients were more prone to stop treatment due to AZA intolerance/insufficient response (p = 0.0001). At the end of follow-up, the overall efficacy of each schedule was also significantly higher in the MMF group compared to the AZA group (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: We showed for the first time in a propensity matching study that MMF can be used as first-line therapy in AIH as attested by the significantly higher CBR at end of follow-up compared to AZA. Whether this better efficacy is also associated with higher histological remission rates and sustained CBR off immunosuppression needs further evaluation.
METHODS: All 126 consecutive treatment-naive adult AIH patients, diagnosed and followed in our department since 2016, were included. Patients received prednisolone 0.5-1 mg/kg/day plus either AZA 1-2 mg/kg/day or 1.5-2 g/day MMF. The tapering of prednisolone was identical between groups.
RESULTS: After propensity matching score and adjustment for known factors affecting response to treatment and outcome, 64 patients were included in the study (MMF = 32 and AZA = 32). Rates of non-response, complete biochemical response (CBR) at 6 and 12 months, and prednisolone withdrawal (6 months, 12 months, and end of follow-up) were identical between groups. However, MMF treatment was significantly associated with CBR at the end of follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 11.259; 95% CI: 1.3-97.4, p = 0.028]. AZA patients were more prone to stop treatment due to AZA intolerance/insufficient response (p = 0.0001). At the end of follow-up, the overall efficacy of each schedule was also significantly higher in the MMF group compared to the AZA group (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: We showed for the first time in a propensity matching study that MMF can be used as first-line therapy in AIH as attested by the significantly higher CBR at end of follow-up compared to AZA. Whether this better efficacy is also associated with higher histological remission rates and sustained CBR off immunosuppression needs further evaluation.