P584 Use of mycophenolate mofetil in inflammatory bowel disease: results from the ENEIDA registry
Authors: Hernandez Camba A , Arranz L , Vera I , Carpio D , Calafat Sard M , Lucendo A , Taxonera C , Marín S , Garcia M J , Suris Marín G , Sánchez Rodríguez E , Carbajo A Y , De Castro M L , Iborra M , Martin-Cardona A , Rodríguez Lago I , Busquets D , Bertoletti F , Sierra Ausín M , Tardillo C , Huguet Malaves J , Bujanda L , Castaño A , Merino O , Domènch E , Ramos L 
Published: January 2020

Background

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunomodulatory drug that inhibits T and B cells, through a reversible inhibition of inositol monophosphate dehydrogenase. MMF is commonly used for prophylaxis of organ rejection after transplant. Studies to evaluate its use in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited especially after the appearance of biological treatments (BT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MMF in IBD.

Methods

IBD patients who had received MMF were identified in the ENEIDA registry (prospective database of GETECCU). Patients with Crohn′s disease (CD) or Ulcerative colitis (UC) in whom oral MMF was prescribed for this condition were evaluated. Demographic and IBD clinical data were collected. Clinical activity was assessed through Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) and partial Mayo score (pMS); C-reactive protein (CRP) and faecal calprotectin (FC) were reviewed at baseline (at MMF starting), 3 and 6 months and at the end of follow-up (at MMF stopping or the last visit while on MMF). Adverse events (AEs) during MMF treatment were documented. Statistical analyses were performed by descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests.

Results

Between June 1999 and November 2018 a total of 83 patients received MMF (mean age 36.4 (SD12.3) years; 52F/31M; 66 CD and 17 UC). Indication for MMF use was maintenance of remission (50%), induction of remission (44%) and post-surgical prophylaxis (6%). Mean MMF dose used was 1269.8 (SD 741) mg/day. In 61% of cases, systemic steroids were administered starting MMF and it was used concomitantly to BT in 27% of patients. In CD, statistically significant differences in HBI at 6 months (mean 5.9 (SD 4.8), p = 0.04) and at the end of follow-up (mean 5.7 (SD 5), p = 0.014) compared with baseline (mean 7.6 (SD 4.3)) were observed. In UC, statistically significant differences in pMS at 6 months (mean 2.1 (SD 2.7), p = 0.018) and at the end of follow-up (mean 1.8 (SD 2.6), p = 0.003) compared with baseline (mean 4.8 (SD 2.5)) were determined. No significant differences in CRP or CF values during follow-up were observed. Concomitant use of BT was significantly associated with clinical response (OR 1.36 95% CI 1.08–1.73). MMF was maintained for a median time of 28.9 months (IQR 20.4–37.5) and was stopped in 84% of patients due to lack of response (50%), loss of response (17%) and remission (15%). Overall, 23% of patients presented MMF-related AEs (60% abdominal pain). MMF was withdrawn in 11% of patients due to AEs.

Conclusion

MMFshows a clinical benefit in the long term in both CD and UC patients with a favourable safety profile. MMF could be a treatment option alone or in combination with biologics in patients with IBD in clinical practice.