| 1. |
- Gensmyr-Singer, Helena, et al.
(författare)
-
What happens to patients with inflammatory bowel disease who are intolerant to thiopurines?
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Inflammatory Intestinal Diseases. - : S. Karger. - 2296-9403 .- 2296-9365. ; 9:1, s. 135-146
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The clinical consequences for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who stop treatment owing to side effects have not been fully investigated.Methods: This retrospective observational study aimed to compare patients who discontinued thiopurine treatment due to side effects with those who tolerated thiopurine treatment in the use of other IBD drugs, surgery, and fecal calprotectin values in the first 5 years after the start of thiopurine treatment.Results: The proportion of patients with IBD who initiated thiopurine treatment at our clinic was 44% (32% ulcerative colitis and 64% Crohn’s disease) and 31% (n = 94) of those patients had to stop thiopurine treatment within 5 years due to side effects. Patients who discontinued thiopurine treatment due to intolerance were significantly older (median age 33 vs. 27 years, p = 0.003), significantly more often used prednisolone (89 vs. 76%, p = 0.009), and used to a lesser extent TNF inhibitors at the start of thiopurine treatment (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.062). Budesonide treatment and non-TNF inhibitor second-line therapy were significantly more commonly used in patients who discontinued thiopurine treatment owing to side effects, but there were no statistically significant differences in the use of other treatments. The proportion of patients with a median FC >200 μg/g was significantly higher during follow-up in patients with UC who discontinued thiopurine treatment owing to side effects.Conclusions: Patients who discontinued thiopurines owing to side effects were prescribed more budesonide and non-TNF inhibitor second-line therapy, but there were no differences in the use of TNF inhibitors, prednisolone, or surgery.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hovstadius, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Elevated Faecal Calprotectin in Patients with a Normal Colonoscopy : Does It Matter in Clinical Practice? A Retrospective Observational Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Inflammatory Intestinal Diseases. - : S. Karger. - 2296-9403 .- 2296-9365. ; 6, s. 101-108
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Faecal calprotectin (FC) is commonly used as a diagnostic tool for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. However, there is uncertainty in daily clinical practice how to interpret an elevated FC in patients with a normal colonoscopy. We investigated if patients with a normal colonoscopy but with an elevated FC more often were diagnosed with a GI disease in a 3-year follow-up period.Methods: Patients referred for colonoscopy (n = 1,263) to the Umeå University Hospital endoscopy unit between 2007 and 2013 performed a FC test (CALPRO®) on the day before bowel preparation. A medical chart review was performed on all patients who had normal findings on their colonoscopy (n = 585, median age 64 years).Results: Thirty-four percent of the patients (n = 202) with normal colonoscopy had elevated FC (>50 μg/g), and these patients were more frequently diagnosed with upper GI disease during the follow-up period than patients with normal FC levels (9.9 vs. 4.7%; p = 0.015). The upper GI diseases were mainly benign (i.e., gastritis). In a binary logistic regression analysis controlling for age, gender, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drug use, and proton-pump inhibitor use, there was no difference for a new diagnosis of upper GI disease in the follow-up period (multivariate OR 1.70; 95% CI: 0.77–3.74). There was no difference in a new diagnosis of lower GI disease (6.4 vs. 5.2%; p = 0.545) or cardiovascular disease/death (multivariate OR 1.68; 95% CI: 0.83–3.42) in the follow-up period between patients with elevated versus normal FC levels.Conclusions: In patients with a normal colonoscopy, a simultaneously measured increased FC level was not associated with an increased risk for significant GI disease during a follow-up period of 3 years.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
