Assessment of thiopurine methyltransferase activity in patients prescribed azathioprine or other thiopurine-based drugs.

Ronald A Booth, Mohammed T Ansari, Andrea C Tricco, Evelin Loit, Laura Weeks, Steve Doucette, Becky Skidmore, Jeffrey S Hoch, Sophia Tsouros, Margaret Sears, Richmond Sy, Jacob Karsh, Suja Mani, James Galipeau, Alexander Yurkiewich, Raymond Daniel, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Fatemeh Yazdi
{"title":"Assessment of thiopurine methyltransferase activity in patients prescribed azathioprine or other thiopurine-based drugs.","authors":"Ronald A Booth,&nbsp;Mohammed T Ansari,&nbsp;Andrea C Tricco,&nbsp;Evelin Loit,&nbsp;Laura Weeks,&nbsp;Steve Doucette,&nbsp;Becky Skidmore,&nbsp;Jeffrey S Hoch,&nbsp;Sophia Tsouros,&nbsp;Margaret Sears,&nbsp;Richmond Sy,&nbsp;Jacob Karsh,&nbsp;Suja Mani,&nbsp;James Galipeau,&nbsp;Alexander Yurkiewich,&nbsp;Raymond Daniel,&nbsp;Alexander Tsertsvadze,&nbsp;Fatemeh Yazdi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine whether pretreatment determination of thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) enzymatic activity (phenotyping) or TPMT genotype, to guide thiopurine therapy in chronic autoimmune disease patients, reduces treatment harms. Other objectives included assessing: preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic requirements for TPMT testing; diagnostic accuracy of TPMT genotyping versus phenotyping; association of thiopurine toxicity with TPMT genotypic or phenotypic status; and costs of testing, care, and treating drug-associated complications.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Healthstar were searched from inception to May 2010; the Cochrane Library® to October 2009; and BIOSIS®, Genetics Abstracts, and EconLit™ to May 2009, for English language records.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>A reviewer screened records, and a second reviewer verified exclusions and subsequent selection of relevant studies. Studies in patients with leukemia and organ transplant were excluded. Additionally, laboratories that provide TPMT analytical services were surveyed to assess means of TPMT testing in practice. Where possible, risk of bias was assessed using standard criteria. Meta-analyses estimated diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity; and odds ratios of associations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1790 titles or abstracts, and 538 full text records were screened. 114 observational studies and one RCT were included. Majority of studies were rated fair quality, except for diagnostic studies with 37 percent of studies rated poor. In general, there were few patients who were homozygous (or compound heterozygous) for TPMT variant alleles in the included studies limiting applicability. There is insufficient evidence examining effectiveness of pretesting in terms of reduction in clinical adverse events. Sufficient preanalytical data were available regarding preferred specimen collection, stability and storage conditions for TPMT testing. There was no clinically significant effect of age, gender, various coadministered drugs, or most morbidities (with the exception of renal failure and dialysis). TPMT phenotyping methods had coefficients of variation generally below 10 percent. TPMT genotyping reproducibility is generally between 95-100 percent. The sensitivity of genotyping to identify patients with low or intermediate TPMT enzymatic activity is imprecise, ranging from 70.70 to 82.10 percent (95 percent CI, lower bound range 37.90 to 54.00 percent; upper bound range 84.60 to 96.90 percent). Sensitivity of homozygous TPMT genotype to correctly identify patients with low to absent enzymatic activity was 87.10 percent (95 percent CI 44.30 to 98.30 percent). Genotyping specificity approached 100 percent. Leukopenia was significantly associated with low and intermediate enzymatic activity (low activity OR 80.00, 95 percent CI 11.5 to 559; and intermediate activity OR 2.96, 95 percent CI 1.18 to 7.42), and homozygous and heterozygous TPMT variant allele genotype (OR 18.60, 95 percent CI 4.12 to 83.60; and 4.62, 95 percent CI 2.34 to 9.16, respectively). In general, TPMT phenotyping costs less than genotyping, although estimates across studies are quite heterogeneous.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient direct evidence regarding the effectiveness of pretesting of TPMT status in patients with chronic autoimmune diseases. Indirect evidence confirms strong association of leukopenia with lower levels of TPMT activity and carrier genotype already established in the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 196","pages":"1-282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781432/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To examine whether pretreatment determination of thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) enzymatic activity (phenotyping) or TPMT genotype, to guide thiopurine therapy in chronic autoimmune disease patients, reduces treatment harms. Other objectives included assessing: preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic requirements for TPMT testing; diagnostic accuracy of TPMT genotyping versus phenotyping; association of thiopurine toxicity with TPMT genotypic or phenotypic status; and costs of testing, care, and treating drug-associated complications.

Data sources: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Healthstar were searched from inception to May 2010; the Cochrane Library® to October 2009; and BIOSIS®, Genetics Abstracts, and EconLit™ to May 2009, for English language records.

Review methods: A reviewer screened records, and a second reviewer verified exclusions and subsequent selection of relevant studies. Studies in patients with leukemia and organ transplant were excluded. Additionally, laboratories that provide TPMT analytical services were surveyed to assess means of TPMT testing in practice. Where possible, risk of bias was assessed using standard criteria. Meta-analyses estimated diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity; and odds ratios of associations.

Results: 1790 titles or abstracts, and 538 full text records were screened. 114 observational studies and one RCT were included. Majority of studies were rated fair quality, except for diagnostic studies with 37 percent of studies rated poor. In general, there were few patients who were homozygous (or compound heterozygous) for TPMT variant alleles in the included studies limiting applicability. There is insufficient evidence examining effectiveness of pretesting in terms of reduction in clinical adverse events. Sufficient preanalytical data were available regarding preferred specimen collection, stability and storage conditions for TPMT testing. There was no clinically significant effect of age, gender, various coadministered drugs, or most morbidities (with the exception of renal failure and dialysis). TPMT phenotyping methods had coefficients of variation generally below 10 percent. TPMT genotyping reproducibility is generally between 95-100 percent. The sensitivity of genotyping to identify patients with low or intermediate TPMT enzymatic activity is imprecise, ranging from 70.70 to 82.10 percent (95 percent CI, lower bound range 37.90 to 54.00 percent; upper bound range 84.60 to 96.90 percent). Sensitivity of homozygous TPMT genotype to correctly identify patients with low to absent enzymatic activity was 87.10 percent (95 percent CI 44.30 to 98.30 percent). Genotyping specificity approached 100 percent. Leukopenia was significantly associated with low and intermediate enzymatic activity (low activity OR 80.00, 95 percent CI 11.5 to 559; and intermediate activity OR 2.96, 95 percent CI 1.18 to 7.42), and homozygous and heterozygous TPMT variant allele genotype (OR 18.60, 95 percent CI 4.12 to 83.60; and 4.62, 95 percent CI 2.34 to 9.16, respectively). In general, TPMT phenotyping costs less than genotyping, although estimates across studies are quite heterogeneous.

Conclusions: There is insufficient direct evidence regarding the effectiveness of pretesting of TPMT status in patients with chronic autoimmune diseases. Indirect evidence confirms strong association of leukopenia with lower levels of TPMT activity and carrier genotype already established in the literature.

硫嘌呤甲基转移酶活性在服用硫嘌呤或其他硫嘌呤类药物的患者中的评估。
目的:探讨前处理测定硫嘌呤甲基转移酶(TPMT)酶活性(表型)或TPMT基因型,是否能指导硫嘌呤治疗慢性自身免疫性疾病患者,减少治疗危害。其他目标包括评估:TPMT测试的分析前、分析后和分析后需求;TPMT基因分型与表型分型的诊断准确性;硫嘌呤毒性与TPMT基因型或表型状态的关系;以及检测、护理和治疗药物相关并发症的费用。数据来源:MEDLINE®、EMBASE®和Healthstar检索自成立至2010年5月;Cochrane Library®至2009年10月;和BIOSIS®,遗传学文摘,和EconLit™到2009年5月,为英语语言记录。审查方法:审稿人筛选记录,第二审稿人验证排除和随后的相关研究选择。排除了白血病和器官移植患者的研究。此外,对提供TPMT分析服务的实验室进行了调查,以评估实践中TPMT检测的手段。在可能的情况下,使用标准标准评估偏倚风险。荟萃分析估计诊断敏感性和特异性;以及关联的比值比。结果:共筛选标题或摘要1790篇,全文记录538条。纳入114项观察性研究和1项随机对照试验。大多数研究被评为质量一般,除了诊断性研究,有37%的研究被评为质量差。总的来说,纳入的研究中TPMT变异等位基因纯合(或复合杂合)的患者很少,限制了适用性。在减少临床不良事件方面,没有足够的证据来检验预测试的有效性。充分的分析前数据可用于TPMT测试的首选标本采集,稳定性和储存条件。年龄、性别、各种共同给药药物或大多数发病率(肾功能衰竭和透析除外)对临床无显著影响。TPMT分型方法的变异系数一般在10%以下。TPMT基因分型的可重复性一般在95- 100%之间。基因分型识别低或中等TPMT酶活性患者的敏感性不精确,范围为70.70至82.10% (95% CI,下限范围为37.90至54.00%;上限范围为84.60%至96.90%)。纯合子TPMT基因型正确识别低酶活性或无酶活性患者的敏感性为87.10% (95% CI 44.30至98.30%)。基因分型特异性接近100%。白细胞减少与低和中等酶活性显著相关(低活性OR为80.00,95% CI为11.5 - 559;和中间活性OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18至7.42),纯合子和杂合子TPMT变异等位基因型(OR 18.60, 95% CI 4.12至83.60;和4.62,95% CI分别为2.34至9.16)。一般来说,TPMT表型分型的成本低于基因分型,尽管不同研究的估计差异很大。结论:关于慢性自身免疫性疾病患者中TPMT状态预检测的有效性,没有足够的直接证据。间接证据证实,白细胞减少与文献中已经建立的低水平TPMT活性和载体基因型有很强的关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信