Abstract
Background and aim To develop and validate a prognostic model for risk-stratified monitoring of 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) toxicity.
Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and Gold for model development and validation respectively. It included adults newly diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and established on 5-ASAs between 01/01/2007 and 31/12/2019. 5-ASA discontinuation with abnormal monitoring blood test result was the outcome of interest. Patients prescribed 5-ASAs for ≥6 months i.e., established on treatment, were followed-up for up to five years. Penalised Cox-regression was used to develop the risk equation. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA (StataCorp LLC).
Results 14,109 and 7,523 participants formed the development and validation cohorts with 401 and 243 events respectively. 185, 172, and 64 discontinuations were due to cytopenia, elevated creatinine and elevated liver enzymes respectively in the derivation cohort. Hazardous alcohol intake, chronic kidney disease, thiopurine use, and blood test abnormalities before follow-up were strong prognostic factors. The optimism adjusted R2D in development data was 0.08. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic (95% Confidence Interval) in validation cohort were 0.90 (0.61-1.19) and 0.57 (0.37-0.77) respectively.
Conclusion This prognostic model utilises information available during routine clinical care and can be used to inform decisions on the interval between monitoring blood-tests. The results of this study ought to be considered by guideline writing groups to risk-stratify blood test monitoring during established 5-ASA treatment.
What is already known?
Renal, hepatic and blood toxicity are uncommon during long-term 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) treatment.
There are no mechanisms to predict the risk of these toxicities during established treatment that may be used to risk stratify blood-test monitoring.
What this study adds?
Using a large national dataset originated during routine care, this study developed a prognostic model that discriminated patients at varying risk of 5-ASA toxicity during established treatment with good performance characteristics validated.
Most patients were at low-risk of toxicity due to 5-ASAs and could continue with annual monitoring blood-tests while others at high risk may require more frequent monitoring.
This prognostic model can be used to make an informed decision on the interval between monitoring blood tests and the findings ought to be considered by guideline writing groups to bring about equitable and sustainable change in clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
: A.A. has received Institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Oxford Immunotech; and personal fees from UpToDate (royalty), Springer (royalty), Cadilla Pharmaceuticals (lecture fees), NGM Bio (consulting), Limbic (consulting) and personal fees from Inflazome (consulting) unrelated to the work. GP Aithal has received consulting fees from Abbott, Albereo, Amryth, AstraZeneca, BenevolentAI, DNDI, GlaxoSmithKline, NuCANA, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Servier Pharmaceuticals, W.L Gore & Associates paid to the University of Nottingham unrelated to the work. CPF has received Consultancy/Advisory board fees from Abbvie, GenMab, Incyte, Morphosys, Roche, Takeda, Ono, Kite/Gilead, BMS/Celgene, BTG/Veriton and departmental research funding from BeiGene unrelated to the work. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant NIHR130580. The funders had no role in conducting and/or reporting this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)'s Research Data Governance process (Reference: 20_000236R).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
A Abhishek: abhishek.abhishek{at}nottingham.ac.uk Georgina Nakafero: georgina.nakafero{at}nottingham.ac.uk Matthew J Grainge: matthew.grainge{at}nottingham.ac.uk Tim Card: tim.card{at}nottingham.ac.uk Maarten W Taal: mdzmt{at}exmail.nottingham.ac.uk Guruprasad P Aithal: guru.aithal{at}nottingham.ac.uk Christopher P Fox: Christopher.Fox2{at}nuh.nhs.uk Christian D Mallen: c.d.mallen{at}keele.ac.uk Matthew D Stevenson: m.d.stevenson{at}sheffield.ac.uk Richard D Riley: r.d.riley{at}bham.ac.uk
Data Availability
Data used in the study are from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and cannot be shared due to licensing restrictions. Study protocol is available from www.cprd.com.
