-
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory... 2022Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have an array of immunomodulatory treatment options compared with IPF, due to their... (Review)
Review
Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have an array of immunomodulatory treatment options compared with IPF, due to their inflammatory component. However, there is a relative paucity of guidance on the management of this heterogeneous group of diseases. In ILDs other than IPF, immunosuppression is the cornerstone of therapy, with varying levels of evidence for different immunomodulatory agents and for each specific ILD. Classification of ILDs is important for guiding treatment decisions. Immunomodulatory agents mainly include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide and rituximab. In this review, the available evidence for single agents in the most common ILDs is first discussed. We then reviewed practical therapeutic approaches in connective tissue disease-related ILD and interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, scleroderma-related ILD, vasculitis and dermatomyositis with hypoxemic respiratory failure, idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonitis sarcoidosis, fibrosing organizing pneumonia and eosinophilic pneumonia. The treatment of acute exacerbations of ILD is also discussed. Therapy augmentation in ILD is dictated by the recognition of progression of disease. Criteria for the evaluation of progression of disease are then discussed. Finally, specific protocol and measures to increase patients' safety are reviewed as well, including general monitoring and serologic surveillance, prophylaxis, patients' education, genetic testing for azathioprine, MMF serum levels and cyclophosphamide administration protocols. Immunomodulatory therapies are largely successful in the management of ILDs and can be safely managed with the application of specific protocols, precautions and monitoring.
Topics: Azathioprine; Cyclophosphamide; Disease Progression; Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Immunomodulation; Lung Diseases, Interstitial
PubMed: 35938712
DOI: 10.1177/17534666221117002 -
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology Jan 2021Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is an immunoinflammatory chronic liver disease with dynamic and rather heterogeneous disease manifestations. A trend of increasing prevalence... (Review)
Review
Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is an immunoinflammatory chronic liver disease with dynamic and rather heterogeneous disease manifestations. A trend of increasing prevalence of AIH has been observed worldwide, along with a relative increase in the percentage of male patients. AIH is characterized and diagnosed based on serum biochemistry and liver histology: elevated aminotransferases and serum immunoglobulin G (IgG), the presence of serum anti-nuclear antibody or anti-smooth muscle antibody, and interface lympho-plasmacytic hepatitis. Clinical manifestations differ among disease subtypes with distinct time-frames, i.e., AIH with a chronic insidious onset, and acute-onset AIH (the diagnosis of which is often challenging due to the lack of typical serum findings). The absence of disease-specific biomarkers or histological findings may expand the disease phenotype into drug-induced AIH-like liver injury. Corticosteroids and azathioprine are recommended first-line treatments for AIH. The complete normalization of aminotransferases and serum IgG is an essential treatment response to ensure long-term overall survival. An incomplete response or intolerance to these drugs is considered an indication for second-line treatment, especially with mycophenolate mofetil. Life-long maintenance treatment is required for the majority of patients, but the few who achieve prolonged and stringent biochemical remission with lower alanine aminotransferase and IgG within the normal range may be able to discontinue the medications. In the future, the quality of life of AIH patients should be managed by personalized medicine, including the appropriate selection and dosing of first-line therapy and perhaps alternating with potential therapeutics, and the prediction of the success of treatment withdrawal.
Topics: Autoantibodies; Azathioprine; Hepatitis, Autoimmune; Humans; Mycophenolic Acid; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33291862
DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2020.0189 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Nov 2014The combination of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids leads to remission in most patients with antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The combination of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids leads to remission in most patients with antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides. However, even when patients receive maintenance treatment with azathioprine or methotrexate, the relapse rate remains high. Rituximab may help to maintain remission.
METHODS
Patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing granulomatosis with polyangiitis, microscopic polyangiitis, or renal-limited ANCA-associated vasculitis in complete remission after a cyclophosphamide-glucocorticoid regimen were randomly assigned to receive either 500 mg of rituximab on days 0 and 14 and at months 6, 12, and 18 after study entry or daily azathioprine until month 22. The primary end point at month 28 was the rate of major relapse (the reappearance of disease activity or worsening, with a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score >0, and involvement of one or more major organs, disease-related life-threatening events, or both).
RESULTS
The 115 enrolled patients (87 with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, 23 with microscopic polyangiitis, and 5 with renal-limited ANCA-associated vasculitis) received azathioprine (58 patients) or rituximab (57 patients). At month 28, major relapse had occurred in 17 patients in the azathioprine group (29%) and in 3 patients in the rituximab group (5%) (hazard ratio for relapse, 6.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 27.96; P=0.002). The frequencies of severe adverse events were similar in the two groups. Twenty-five patients in each group (P=0.92) had severe adverse events; there were 44 events in the azathioprine group and 45 in the rituximab group. Eight patients in the azathioprine group and 11 in the rituximab group had severe infections, and cancer developed in 2 patients in the azathioprine group and 1 in the rituximab group. Two patients in the azathioprine group died (1 from sepsis and 1 from pancreatic cancer).
CONCLUSIONS
More patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides had sustained remission at month 28 with rituximab than with azathioprine. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; MAINRITSAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00748644; EudraCT number, 2008-002846-51.).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Azathioprine; Female; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infections; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasms; Rituximab; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 25372085
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404231 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Apr 2010The comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab and azathioprine therapy alone or in combination for Crohn's disease are unknown. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab and azathioprine therapy alone or in combination for Crohn's disease are unknown.
METHODS
In this randomized, double-blind trial, we evaluated the efficacy of infliximab monotherapy, azathioprine monotherapy, and the two drugs combined in 508 adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who had not undergone previous immunosuppressive or biologic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of 5 mg of infliximab per kilogram of body weight at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 8 weeks plus daily oral placebo capsules; 2.5 mg of oral azathioprine per kilogram daily plus a placebo infusion on the standard schedule; or combination therapy with the two drugs. Patients received study medication through week 30 and could continue in a blinded study extension through week 50.
RESULTS
Of the 169 patients receiving combination therapy, 96 (56.8%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 26 (the primary end point), as compared with 75 of 169 patients (44.4%) receiving infliximab alone (P=0.02) and 51 of 170 patients (30.0%) receiving azathioprine alone (P<0.001 for the comparison with combination therapy and P=0.006 for the comparison with infliximab). Similar numerical trends were found at week 50. At week 26, mucosal healing had occurred in 47 of 107 patients (43.9%) receiving combination therapy, as compared with 28 of 93 patients (30.1%) receiving infliximab (P=0.06) and 18 of 109 patients (16.5%) receiving azathioprine (P<0.001 for the comparison with combination therapy and P=0.02 for the comparison with infliximab). Serious infections developed in 3.9% of patients in the combination-therapy group, 4.9% of those in the infliximab group, and 5.6% of those in the azathioprine group.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who were treated with infliximab plus azathioprine or infliximab monotherapy were more likely to have a corticosteroid-free clinical remission than those receiving azathioprine monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094458.)
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Azathioprine; Chi-Square Distribution; Crohn Disease; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infliximab; Infusions, Intravenous; Logistic Models; Male; Remission Induction
PubMed: 20393175
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904492 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Nov 2011Maintenance therapy, often with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, is required to consolidate remission and prevent relapse after the initial control of lupus... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Maintenance therapy, often with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, is required to consolidate remission and prevent relapse after the initial control of lupus nephritis.
METHODS
We carried out a 36-month, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study comparing oral mycophenolate mofetil (2 g per day) and oral azathioprine (2 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), plus placebo in each group, in patients who met response criteria during a 6-month induction trial. The study group underwent repeat randomization in a 1:1 ratio. Up to 10 mg of prednisone per day or its equivalent was permitted. The primary efficacy end point was the time to treatment failure, which was defined as death, end-stage renal disease, doubling of the serum creatinine level, renal flare, or rescue therapy for lupus nephritis. Secondary assessments included the time to the individual components of treatment failure and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 227 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment (116 to mycophenolate mofetil and 111 to azathioprine). Mycophenolate mofetil was superior to azathioprine with respect to the primary end point, time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.77; P = 0.003), and with respect to time to renal flare and time to rescue therapy (hazard ratio, <1.00; P < 0.05). Observed rates of treatment failure were 16.4% (19 of 116 patients) in the mycophenolate mofetil group and 32.4% (36 of 111) in the azathioprine group. Adverse events, most commonly minor infections and gastrointestinal disorders, occurred in more than 95% of the patients in both groups (P = 0.68). Serious adverse events occurred in 33.3% of patients in the azathioprine group and in 23.5% of those in the mycophenolate mofetil group (P = 0.11), and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse events was higher with azathioprine than with mycophenolate mofetil (39.6% vs. 25.2%, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Mycophenolate mofetil was superior to azathioprine in maintaining a renal response to treatment and in preventing relapse in patients with lupus nephritis who had a response to induction therapy. (Funded by Vifor Pharma [formerly Aspreva]; ALMS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00377637.).
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Azathioprine; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infections; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Lupus Nephritis; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Mycophenolic Acid; Patient Dropouts; Secondary Prevention; Young Adult
PubMed: 22087680
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014460 -
The Lancet. Neurology May 2020Azathioprine is used as a first-line treatment to prevent relapses of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Tocilizumab has been reported to reduce NMOSD... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Safety and efficacy of tocilizumab versus azathioprine in highly relapsing neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (TANGO): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.
BACKGROUND
Azathioprine is used as a first-line treatment to prevent relapses of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Tocilizumab has been reported to reduce NMOSD disease activity in retrospective case reports. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab and azathioprine in patients with highly relapsing NMOSD.
METHODS
We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial at six hospitals in China. We recruited adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with highly relapsing NMOSD diagnosed according to 2015 International Panel for Neuromyelitis Optica Diagnosis criteria, who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 7·5 or lower, and had a history of at least two clinical relapses during the previous 12 months or three relapses during the previous 24 months with at least one relapse within the previous 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous tocilizumab (8 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or oral azathioprine (2-3 mg/kg per day) by an independent statistician using computer-generated randomisation software with permuted blocks of four. The central review committee, EDSS raters, laboratory personnel, and radiologists were masked to the treatment assignment, but investigators and patients were aware of treatment allocation. The minimum planned duration of treatment was 60 weeks following randomisation. The primary outcome was time to first relapse in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, and the per-protocol population, which included all patients who used azathioprine or tocilizumab as monotherapy. For the analyses of the primary outcome, the patients were prespecified into two subgroups according to concomitant autoimmune disease status. Safety was assessed in the full analysis set. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03350633.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 1, 2017, and Aug 3, 2018, we enrolled 118 patients, of whom 59 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab and 59 were randomly assigned to azathioprine. All 118 patients received one dose of study drug and were included in the full analysis set. 108 participants were included in the per-protocol analysis (56 in the tocilizumab group and 52 in the azathioprine group). In the full analysis set, median time to the first relapse was longer in the tocilizumab group than the azathioprine group (78·9 weeks [IQR 58·3-90·6] vs 56·7 [32·9-81·7] weeks; p=0·0026). Eight (14%) of 59 patients in the tocilizumab group and 28 (47%) of 59 patients in the azathioprine group had a relapse at the end of the study (hazard ratio [HR] 0·236 [95% CI 0·107-0·518]; p<0·0001). In the per-protocol analysis, 50 (89%) of 56 patients in the tocilizumab group were relapse-free compared with 29 (56%) of 52 patients in the azathioprine group at the end of the study (HR 0·188 [95% CI 0·076-0·463]; p<0·0001); the median time to first relapse was also longer in the tocilizumab group than the azathioprine group (67·2 weeks [IQR 47·9-77·9] vs 38·0 [23·6-64·9]; p<0·0001). In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the full analysis set stratified by concomitant autoimmune diseases, among patients without concomitant autoimmune diseases, three (9%) of 34 patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 (35%) of 37 patients in the azathioprine group had relapsed by the end of the study. Among patients with concomitant autoimmune diseases, a lower proportion of patients in the tocilizumab group had a relapse than in the azathioprine group (five [20%] of 25 patients vs 15 [68%] of 22 patients; HR 0·192 [95% CI 0·070-0·531]; p=0·0004). 57 (97%) of 59 patients in the tocilizumab group and 56 (95%) of 59 patients in the azathioprine group had adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events occurred in 36 (61%) of 59 tocilizumab-treated patients and 49 (83%) of 59 azathioprine-treated patients. One death (2%) occurred in the tocilizumab group and one (2%) in the azathioprine group, but neither of the deaths were treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION
Tocilizumab significantly reduced the risk of a subsequent NMOSD relapse compared with azathioprine. Tocilizumab might therefore be another safe and effective treatment to prevent relapses in patients with NMOSD.
FUNDING
Tianjin Medical University, Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Science Foundation of China.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azathioprine; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Neuromyelitis Optica; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32333897
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30070-3 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Nov 2022In this case report, a 57-year-old male presented with circulatory collapse, systemic inflammation and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis a week after initiation...
In this case report, a 57-year-old male presented with circulatory collapse, systemic inflammation and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis a week after initiation of azathioprine treatment (AZA). He was presumed to have sepsis, AZA was paused, and he was treated with antibiotics. Re-initiation of AZA post recovery caused a relapse of symptoms and anuric renal failure within three hours. He was diagnosed with the rare and potentially fatal azathioprine hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS), a type-IV hypersensitivity reaction. A skin biopsy can support diagnosis, and upon suspicion of AHS, AZA should be stopped, and re-exposure avoided.
Topics: Male; Humans; Middle Aged; Azathioprine; Syndrome; Hypersensitivity, Delayed; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Biopsy
PubMed: 36426815
DOI: No ID Found -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2020This is a narrative review of azathioprine. This medication is immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive, and it has been used widely through different medical specialties... (Review)
Review
This is a narrative review of azathioprine. This medication is immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive, and it has been used widely through different medical specialties to modify disease. It has been proven useful for several dermatoses and it has encountered success when used as an off-label indication for other dermatologic diseases. Its mechanism of action is described thoroughly, as well as precautions for monitoring adequate levels in patients using it. Dermatologists should also be aware of the possible adverse events it may present. In dermatology it can be used in bullous and autoimmune diseases, and in other conditions, including intractable pruritus, atopic dermatitis, photodermatoses, psoriasis, and others. Azathioprine offers an alternative as a steroid-sparing agent and this review helps dermatologists prescribe it safely to all patients who require it.
Topics: Azathioprine; Dermatology; Eczema; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 33250113
DOI: 10.1016/j.abd.2020.05.003 -
Actas Dermo-sifiliograficas Jun 2020Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is an uncommon, serious disease that is treated with systemic corticosteroids and corticosteroid-sparing agents.
BACKGROUND
Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is an uncommon, serious disease that is treated with systemic corticosteroids and corticosteroid-sparing agents.
OBJECTIVES
To describe and analyze the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with PV.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with PV over a period of 12years.
RESULTS
PV presented with mucosal lesions in 20 of the 32 patients studied (63%); the most common site was the oral mucosa followed by the vulva. Mucosal involvement was more common in women (P=.03). Lesions were found at more than 1 mucosal site in patients whose disease began in the mucosa, independently of age or sex (P=.003). Disease onset before the age of 40years was associated with generalized skin lesions (P=.003), a need for corticosteroid-sparing therapy (P=.05), and refractory PV (P=.02). Azathioprine was the most widely prescribed corticosteroid-sparing agent (in 22 patients). Eight patients (25%) were dependent on corticosteroids and disease recurred in 26 (81%). Complete remission, with or without treatment, was achieved in 15 patients (47%). Patients remained disease-free for a median of 14months, and 2 patients died (6%).
CONCLUSION
Onset before the age of 40 years could be a sign of poor prognosis in patients with PV, as it was significantly associated with a higher risk of generalized skin involvement, a need for corticosteroid-sparing therapy, and refractory disease.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Azathioprine; Female; Humans; Pemphigus; Retrospective Studies; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 32466985
DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2019.10.004 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2022Azathioprine (AZA) is a pharmacologic immunosuppressive agent administrated in various conditions such as autoimmune disease or to prevent the rejection of organ...
Azathioprine (AZA) is a pharmacologic immunosuppressive agent administrated in various conditions such as autoimmune disease or to prevent the rejection of organ transplantation. The mechanism of action is based on its biologically active metabolite 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), which is converted, among others, into thioguanine nucleotides capable of incorporating into replicating DNA, which may act as a strong UV chromophore and trigger DNA oxidation. The interaction between azathioprine and DNA, before and after exposure to solar simulator radiation, was investigated using UV-vis spectrometry and differential pulse voltammetry at a glassy carbon electrode. The results indicated that the interaction of AZA with UV radiation was pH-dependent and occurred with the formation of several metabolites, which induced oxidative damage in DNA, and the formation of DNA-metabolite adducts. Moreover, the viability assays obtained for the L929 cell culture showed that both azathioprine and degraded azathioprine induced a decrease in cell proliferation.
Topics: Azathioprine; Photolysis; Mercaptopurine; DNA; Immunosuppressive Agents; DNA Adducts
PubMed: 36430909
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214438