Back

Risk-stratified monitoring for sulfasalazine toxicity: prognostic model development and validation.

Abhishek, A.; Grainge, M. J.; Card, T.; Williams, H. C.; Taal, M. W.; Aithal, G. P.; Fox, C. P.; Mallen, C. D.; Stevenson, M. D.; Nakafero, G.; Riley, R. D.

2023-12-18 rheumatology
10.1101/2023.12.15.23299947 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSulfasalazine induced cytopenia, nephrotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity is uncommon during long-term treatment. Some guidelines recommend three monthly monitoring blood-tests indefinitely while others recommend stopping monitoring after one year. To rationalise monitoring we developed and validated a prognostic model for clinically significant blood, liver, or kidney toxicity during established sulfasalazine treatment. DesignRetrospective cohort study. SettingUK primary-care. Data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum formed independent development and validation cohorts. ParticipantsAge [&ge;]18 years, new diagnosis of an inflammatory condition and sulfasalazine prescription. Study period01/01/2007 to 31/12/2019. OutcomeSulfasalazine discontinuation with abnormal monitoring blood-test result. Analysis: Patients were followed-up from six months after first primary-care prescription to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation, death, 5 years, or 31/12/2019.Penalised Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. Results8,936 participants were included in the development cohort (473 events, 23,299 person-years) and 5,203 participants were included in the validation cohort (280 events, 12,867 person-years).Nine candidate predictors were included. The optimism adjusted R2D and Royston D statistic in the development data were 0.13 and 0.79 respectively. The calibration slope (95% confidence interval (CI)) and Royston D statistic (95% CI) in validation cohort was 1.19 (0.96-1.43) and 0.87 (0.67-1.07) respectively. ConclusionThis prognostic model for sulfasalazine toxicity utilises readily available data and should be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring during established sulfasalazine treatment.<colcnt=1> Evidence before this study?O_LIHepatic, haematological, and renal toxicity from sulfasalazine occurs uncommonly after the first-few months of treatment. Nevertheless, the manufacturers and some specialist societies e.g., the American College of Rheumatology recommend monitoring blood-tests at three monthly intervals during established treatment. Other guidelines e.g., from the British Society of Rheumatology recommend no monitoring after the first two years of treatment. C_LIO_LIIt is not known whether hepatic, haematological, and renal toxicities due to sulfasalazine can be predicted and monitoring be risk-stratified. C_LI Added value of this study?O_LIThis study developed a prognostic model that discriminated patients at varying risk of sulfasalazine toxicity during long-term treatment. It had excellent performance characteristics in an independent validation cohort. C_LIO_LIThe model performed well across age-groups, and in people with rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions. C_LIO_LIAny cytopenia or liver enzyme elevation prior to start of follow-up, chronic kidney disease stage-3, diabetes, methotrexate prescription, leflunomide prescription, and age were strong predictors of sulfasalazine toxicity. C_LI Implications of all the available evidenceO_LIThis prognostic model utilises information that can be easily ascertained during clinical visits. It can be used to inform decisions on the interval between monitoring blood-tests. C_LIO_LIThe results of this study ought to be considered by national and international Rheumatology guideline writing groups to rationalise monitoring during long-term sulfasalazine treatment. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Rheumatology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
41.1%
2
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
50% of probability mass above
3
The Lancet Rheumatology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
4
RMD Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
5
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.2%
7
Journal of Biological Rhythms
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
9
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
10
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
12
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
14
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
15
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
16
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
17
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
18
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
19
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
20
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Arthritis & Rheumatology
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
24
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%