ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The effects of azathioprine (AZA) and budesonide (BUD) on mucosal healing and histologic remission of Crohn's disease (CD) are insufficiently studied. In this prospective study we evaluated the comparative effects of AZA and BUD on endoscopic and histologic activity in patients with steroid-dependent Crohn's ileocolitis or proximal colitis who had achieved clinical remission on conventional steroids. METHODS: Patients were randomized to AZA (2.0-2.5 mg/kg a day) or BUD (6-9 mg a day) for 1 year. The study protocol included clinical examination, laboratory tests, calculation of the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), completion of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), at baseline and then every 2 months for 1 year. Ileocolonoscopy with regional biopsies was performed at baseline and then at the end of the study to assess mucosal healing and the histologic activity of CD. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were randomized to AZA and 39 to BUD. At the end of the study 32 and 25 patients in the AZA and BUD groups, respectively, were in clinical remission (P = 0.07). The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) score fell significantly only in the AZA group (P < 0.0001). Complete or near complete healing was achieved in 83% of AZA-treated patients compared with only 24% of BUD-treated patients (P < 0.0001). Histologic activity as assessed by an average histology score (AHS) fell significantly only in the AZA group (P < 0.001 versus baseline) and was significantly lower than in the BUD group at the end of the study (P < 0.001). Eight patients in the AZA group were withdrawn for adverse events (n = 6) or relapse of disease compared with 14 patients in the BUD group who were withdrawn for relapse of disease. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with steroid-dependent inflammatory Crohn's ileocolitis or proximal colitis who achieve clinical remission with conventional steroids, a 1-year treatment with AZA was superior to BUD in achieving and maintaining mucosal healing and histologic remission.
Subject(s)
Azathioprine/administration & dosage , Budesonide/administration & dosage , Crohn Disease/drug therapy , Drug Resistance/drug effects , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Intestinal Mucosa/pathology , Remission Induction/methods , Adult , Crohn Disease/pathology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Intestinal Mucosa/drug effects , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Antibodies to infliximab may lead to loss of response to infliximab (IFX) in Crohn's disease. Azathioprine (AZA) coadministration prevents the formation, whereas hydrocortisone (HC) premedication reduces the levels of antibodies to IFX. This pilot study aims at assessing the efficacy of these strategies to prevent loss of response to IFX. METHODS: Eligible patients had active steroid-dependent luminal Crohn's disease and received IFX (5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, and 6 for induction and then scheduled q8 week for remission maintenance). Patients were stratified in a 1 : 1 ratio to oral AZA (2-2.5 mg/kg/day, stratum A) or HC premedication (250 mg intravenously, stratum B). Stratum A included only patients naive to AZA; stratum B included both AZA naive and intolerant patients. Steroids were tapered within 6-8 weeks. Patients were followed up with monthly clinical assessments, laboratory tests, Crohn's Disease Activity Index calculations, adverse-events check up, and adherence to treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 23 patients received IFX/HC and 23 IFX/AZA. There were no differences at baseline in any patient-related or disease-related parameters. Seventeen (74%) patients on IFX/AZA completed the study; six patients were withdrawn for primary nonresponse (one patient), lost response to IFX (two patients), or AZA-related adverse events. Eighteen (78%) patients on IFX/HC completed the study; five patients were withdrawn for primary nonresponse (one patient), loss of response (two patients), or infusion reactions to IFX. No significant differences emerged between strata in clinical remission rates or lost response to IFX. CONCLUSION: This prospective 2-year pilot study has not confirmed superiority of any available strategy to maintain the efficacy of IFX.
