P412 Maintenance therapy of vedolizumab (VDZ) after induction of remission by tacrolimus (TAC) in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC)
A. Ito, M. Shun, O. Teppei, T. Katsutoshi
Department of Gastroenterology- Department of Medicine, Tokyo Women’s Medical University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Background
The number of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is increasing. As the number of patients increases, patient backgrounds become diverse, and treatment choices that match the background are required. Most UCs are mild, but about 30% are more than moderate. UCs with moderate or higher illness have resistance/dependence to steroids and are difficult to introduce remission. In recent years, many new drugs have appeared for remission induction therapy. However, in UC treatment, maintenance therapy that suppresses relapse after induction of remission is important. Maintaining long-term remission prevents deterioration in the quality of life and reduces the incidence of UC-related colorectal cancer. To that end, it is important to consider remission maintenance therapy. In patients with intractable UC who have been in remission with tacrolimus (TAC) and used vedolizumab (VDZ) as maintenance therapy, patient background, relapse rate (observation period 181.5 ± 25.9 days), (3) safety of TAC and VDZ combination The sex was examined.
Methods
Seven patients who received remission with TAC and maintained remission with VDZ between November 2018 and June 2019 were included. (1) Patient background at the time of introduction of TAC and VDZ, TAC administration period (day) until the start of VDZ, (2) Relapse rate, (3) AZA use history, side effects, and adverse events caused by the combined use of VED.
Results
(1) Patient background was age at TAC introduction (age) 44.4 ± 19.7, sex (male / female) 3/4, disease duration (year) 12 ± 11.5, CAI 14.4 ± 2.9, Hb 11 ± 0.8, CRP 5.5 ± 3.6, Endoscopic score (Mayo 3 ± 0, UCEIS 7 ± 1.1), CAI at the time of VDZ introduction 6 ± 3.3, Hb 11.3 ± 2.0, CRP 0.4 ± 0.5, TAC administration period until VDZ start 140 ± It was 155. (2) Six patients had a history of AZA use. 4 out of 6 cases with AZA history side effect due to AZA was observed. The side effects of AZA were leukopenia in 2 cases, headache in 2 cases, and liver injury in 1 case. (There were duplicate cases) (3) No adverse events were observed due to the combined use of TAC and VDZ.
Conclusion
TAC has clinical remission or symptom improvement for refractory UCVDZ had been administered since then. In cases where administration of AZA was difficult, VDZ was selected as maintenance therapy. There were no serious side effects from the combined use of TAC and VDZ. TAC is a drug that has a rapid effect. However, long-term administration of TAC is at risk for kidney damage. Therefore, we considered that maintenance therapy with VDZ after TAC is effective.