P415 Paradoxical onset of Takayasu’s arteritis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor-α agents

• Published in: Journal of Crohn's and colitis Vol. 15; no. Supplement_1; p. S422
• Main Authors: Matsune, Y, Kouyama, J, Tsuru, Y, Shimizu, K, Asami, S, Matsuyama, S, Katsuki, S, Ishihara, H, Onizawa, R, Shonai, S, Tatsuno, M, Nishikawa, Y, Takeuchi, K, Watanabe, M, Nakamori, Y, Hirayama, A, Toyoda, J, Ikeda, A, Madarame, A, Nishio, M, Ogashiwa, T, Matsubayashi, M, Fujii, A, Kimura, H, Kunisaki, R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 27-05-2021
• ISSN: 1873-9946; 1876-4479
• DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab076.539

Abstract
Background
Takayasu’s arteritis (TA) is a rare complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). TA is a granulomatous systemic vasculitis of uncertain aetiology affecting large arteries, predominantly the aorta and its main branches, leading to stenotic and expansible lesions. The estimated prevalence of coexisting of TA in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is 0.3%, and that in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) is 0.1%. Anti-tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) agents are used to treat both TA and IBD, although some patients with IBD paradoxically develop TA during treatment with anti-TNF-α agents. However, data regarding the incidence and clinical features of TA in such cases are lacking. This study was performed to clarify the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical features of TA that develops paradoxically during treatment with anti-TNF-α agents in patients with IBD.
Methods
Consecutive patients with IBD who were regularly seen at our centre, a tertiary IBD centre in Japan, from 2000 to 2019 were included in this retrospective single-centre study. We evaluated the prevalence of TA according to the presence or absence of treatment with anti-TNF-α agents and the patients’ clinical manifestations.
Results
Of 1846 patients with UC and 1249 patients with CD, 7 (0.23%) patients with UC developed TA. The prevalence of TA in patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents was significantly higher (4/254, 1.6%) than that in patients without anti-TNF-α agent treatment (3/1592, 0.19%) (p=0.0087, Fisher’s exact test). Among four patients with UC who paradoxically developed TA during treatment with anti-TNF-α agents, three (75%) received infliximab, one (25%) received adalimumab, and one (25%) received golimumab. One was male and three (75%) were female. The median interval from starting treatment with anti-TNF-α agents to diagnosis of TA was 49.0 (34–63) months. All patients had pancolitis as well as persistent active colitis resistant to anti-TNF-α antibody treatment. The treatments for TA administered after anti-TNF-α therapy were as follows: Two (50%) patients discontinued anti-TNF-α agent therapy, three (75%) were treated with prednisolone, and one (25%) received tocilizumab. No patient required an operation for TA.
Conclusion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the prevalence and clinical features of TA in patients with IBD following administration of anti-TNF-α agent therapy. Although TA is a rare complication, our results suggest that it can develop as paradoxical reaction following administration of anti-TNF-α agents.