Abstract
Background Sulfasalazine 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.
Design Retrospective cohort study.
Setting UK primary-care. Data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum formed independent development and validation cohorts.
Participants Age ≥18 years, new diagnosis of an inflammatory condition and sulfasalazine prescription.
Study period 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2019.
Outcome Sulfasalazine 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.
Results 8,936 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.
Conclusion This 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?
Hepatic, 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.
It is not known whether hepatic, haematological, and renal toxicities due to sulfasalazine can be predicted and monitoring be risk-stratified.
Added value of this study?
This 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.
The model performed well across age-groups, and in people with rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions.
Any 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.
Implications of all the available evidence
This 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.
The results of this study ought to be considered by national and international Rheumatology guideline writing groups to rationalise monitoring during long-term sulfasalazine treatment.
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, Benevolent AI, 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) grants 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:
Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the MHRA (Reference: 19_275R, 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
Data Availability
Data used in the study are from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Study protocol is available from www.cprd.com.
