Chloroquine Is Effective for Maintenance of Remission in Autoimmune Hepatitis: Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_TERRABUIO_Chloroquine_Is_Effective_for_Maintenance_of_Remission_in_2019.PDF (371.18 KB)
Citações na Scopus
13
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
Autores
DINIZ, Marcio Augusto
ABRANTES-LEMOS, Clarice Pires
Citação
HEPATOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS, v.3, n.1, p.116-128, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Between 50% and 86% of patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) relapse after immunosuppression withdrawal; long-term immunosuppression is associated with increased risk of neoplasias and infections. Chloroquine diphosphate (CQ) is an immunomodulatory drug that reduces the risk of flares in rheumatologic diseases. Our aims were to investigate the efficacy and safety of CQ for maintenance of biochemical remission of AIH in a double-blind randomized trial and to define a subgroup that obtained a greater benefit from its use. A total of 61 patients with AIH in histologic remission (90.1% AIH type 1 [AIH-1]) were randomized to receive CQ 250 mg/day or placebo for 36 months. Of the 61 patients, 31 received CQ and 30 placebo. At baseline, clinical, laboratory, histologic findings, and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) profile were similar between the two groups. Relapse-free survival was significantly higher in the CQ group compared to the placebo group (59.3% and 19.9%, respectively P = 0.039). For those patients completing 3-year treatment, relapse rates were 41.6% and 0% after CQ and placebo withdrawal, respectively. Factors associated with a higher risk of relapse in multiple Cox regression were placebo use (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.055.5; P = 0.039) and anti-soluble liver antigen/liver-pancreas (anti-SLA/LP) seropositivity (hazard ratio, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.91-15.3; P = 0.002). Although it was not possible to define a subgroup that obtained a greater benefit from CQ according to anti-SLA/LP reactivity or HLA profile, 100% of patients who were anti-SLA/LP-positive (+) relapsed with placebo compared to 50% with CQ (P = 0.055). In the CQgroup, 54.8% had side effects and 19.3% interrupted the drug regimen. Conclusion: CQ safely reduced the risk of relapse of AIH, but it was not possible to define a subgroup that obtained a greater benefit with CQ use, probably because of sample size.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/30848
Referências
  1. ADAMOLEKUN B, 1992, CENT AFR J MED, V38, P350
  2. Alvarez E, 1999, J HEPATOL, V31, P929, DOI 10.1016/S0168-8278(99)80297-9
  3. ANDERSON TW, 1952, ANN MATH STAT, V23, P193, DOI 10.1214/aoms/1177729437
  4. Avina-Zubieta JA, 1998, ANN RHEUM DIS, V57, P582, DOI 10.1136/ard.57.10.582
  5. Bittencourt PL, 1999, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V94, P1906
  6. Chen ZX, 2015, MEDICINE, V94, DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000000953
  7. Costedoat-Chalumeau N, 2015, CLIN REV ALLERG IMMU, V49, P317, DOI 10.1007/s12016-015-8469-8
  8. CZAJA AJ, 1981, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V80, P687
  9. Czaja AI, 2009, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V15, P2314, DOI 10.3748/wjg.15.2314
  10. Czaja AJ, 2006, LIVER INT, V26, P552, DOI 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2006.01259.x
  11. da Silva JC, 2013, CLINICS, V68, P766, DOI 10.6061/clinics/2013(06)07
  12. ESDAILE J, 1991, NEW ENGL J MED, V324, P150
  13. Furst DE, 1996, LUPUS, V5, pS11, DOI 10.1177/096120339600500104
  14. Galil SMA, 2015, LUPUS, V24, P638, DOI 10.1177/0961203314561667
  15. Gayotto LC, 2000, GED, V19, P137
  16. Gregorio GV, 1997, HEPATOLOGY, V25, P541, DOI 10.1002/hep.510250308
  17. Kanzler S, 2001, J HEPATOL, V34, P354, DOI 10.1016/S0168-8278(00)00095-7
  18. Levene H., 1960, CONTRIBUTIONS PROBAB, P278
  19. Liberal R, 2016, REV CLIN ESP, V216, P372, DOI 10.1016/j.rce.2016.04.003
  20. Lohse AW, 2015, J HEPATOL, V63, P971, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.06.030
  21. Manns MP, 2010, HEPATOLOGY, V51, P2193, DOI 10.1002/hep.23584
  22. Montano-Loza AJ, 2007, LIVER INT, V27, P507, DOI 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2007.01444.x
  23. Mucenic Marcos, 2005, Arq. Gastroenterol., V42, P249, DOI 10.1590/S0004-28032005000400011
  24. NARANJO CA, 1981, CLIN PHARMACOL THER, V30, P239, DOI 10.1038/clpt.1981.154
  25. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, COMM TERM CRIT ADV E
  26. Ngu JH, 2012, HEPATOLOGY, V55, P522, DOI 10.1002/hep.24743
  27. Pando M, 1999, HEPATOLOGY, V30, P1374, DOI 10.1002/hep.510300611
  28. Rainsford KD, 2015, INFLAMMOPHARMACOLOGY, V23, P231, DOI 10.1007/s10787-015-0239-y
  29. Rodriguez-Caruncho C, 2014, ACTAS DERMO-SIFILOGR, V105, P243, DOI [10.1016/j.adengl.2012.10.021, 10.1016/j.ad.2012.10.005]
  30. Ruiz-Irastorza G, 2010, ANN RHEUM DIS, V69, P20, DOI 10.1136/ard.2008.101766
  31. SCHERBEL A L, 1957, Cleve Clin Q, V24, P98
  32. SCHOENFELD D, 1982, BIOMETRIKA, V69, P239, DOI 10.2307/2335876
  33. SEKI T, 1992, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V103, P1041, DOI 10.1016/0016-5085(92)90041-V
  34. Ugarte-Gil MF, 2018, LUPUS, V27, P536, DOI 10.1177/0961203317728810
  35. van Gerven NMF, 2013, J HEPATOL, V58, P141, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.09.009
  36. Vergani D, 2004, J HEPATOL, V41, P677, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2004.08.002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MGT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/06
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/07
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03