Comparison of Point-of-Care and Classical Immunoassays for the Monitoring Infliximab and Antibodies Against Infliximab in IBD

Evaluating the Accuracy and Clinical Utility of AFIAS-10 Point of Care Versus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab and Adalimumab

BACKGROUND

New point-of-care (POC) techniques offer rapid results and address some of the limitations of traditional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods, such as lengthy processing times and delays in therapeutic decision making. It is crucial to evaluate the comparability of POC assays with established ELISA methods to ensure accuracy and reliability in therapeutic drug monitoring. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance and clinical utility of the AFIAS-10 POC assay compared with the Promonitor ELISA for quantifying serum concentrations of infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) and detecting antidrug antibodies (ATIs and ATAs).

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted from October 2023 to April 2024, including 225 samples from patients with immune-mediated diseases. The samples were analyzed using both AFIAS-10 POC and Promonitor ELISA assays. To assess the agreement between the 2 methods in terms of quantification, Bland-Altman analysis was performed by examining the mean difference and establishing limits of agreement.

RESULTS

The Pearson correlation coefficient indicated strong correlations for IFX (r = 0.932) and ADA (r = 0.967) between the 2 assays. The mean difference between POC and ELISA for IFX was -0.78 mcg/mL and for ADA was 1.54 mcg/mL, respectively. The POC assay tended to underestimate IFX concentrations and overestimate ADA concentrations compared with ELISA.

CONCLUSIONS

The AFIAS-10 POC assay demonstrated good correlation and concordance with the ELISA method for the quantification of IFX and ADA, as well as for detecting anti-IFX and anti-ADA antibodies. However, this correlation was notably lower at higher drug concentrations.

Comparative evaluation of point of care assay with ELISA techniques for quantifying serum concentrations of ustekinumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analytical performance and clinical utility of the POC-AFIAS assay in comparison with two ELISA established assays for quantifying serum concentrations of ustekinumab.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted. Consecutive serum samples from adult patients undergoing treatment with ustekinumab were collected. Three analytical techniques were compared for the quantification of ustekinumab serum concentrations: the AFIAS-10® POC assay (POC-AFIAS), the Promonitor® ELISA assay (ELISA-PRO), and the ELISA Ridascreen® assay (ELISA-RDSC). Ustekinumab concentrations were evaluated within three therapeutic ranges: <1μg/mL, 1-4.5μg/mL, and >4.5μg/mL. Statistical analysis included Pearson correlation, intra-class correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included in the study. The median ustekinumab concentrations measured were 5.22μg/mL (POC-AFIAS), 3.99μg/mL (ELISA-PRO), and 4.50μg/mL (ELISA-RDSC). Strong correlations were observed between techniques (POC-AFIAS and ELISA-PRO: r=0.921, POC-AFIAS and ELISA-RDSC: r=0.940, ELISA-PRO and ELISA-RDSC: r=0.976). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias difference of 1.81μg/mL between POC-AFIAS and ELISA-PRO, and 1.27μg/mL between POC-AFIAS and ELISA-RDSC. Agreement rates varied by therapeutic range, with the highest agreement observed within the therapeutic range (97.3%) and lower agreement for supra-therapeutic concentrations (74.6%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the POC-AFIAS assay provides comparable results to established ELISA techniques for quantifying serum concentrations of ustekinumab, particularly within the therapeutic range. The findings suggest that the POC-AFIAS assay offers a rapid and effective tool for managing ustekinumab therapy in clinical practice.

Comparison between monotest and traditional batch-based ELISA assays for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab and adalimumab levels and anti-drug antibodies

OBJECTIVES

To compare a new ready-to-use monotest immunoassay, CHORUS Promonitor, for the quantification of serum biological drug levels and anti-drug antibodies of anti-TNF agents, against the reference batch-based ELISA test, Promonitor.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected from patients treated with anti-TNF agents, infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADL). IFX and ADL levels, as well as anti-IFX and anti-ADL antibodies were quantified and compared between the standard ELISA reference test, Promonitor, and the automated monotest ELISA assay, CHORUS Promonitor. Data analysis included both qualitative and quantitative comparison between both tests. For the qualitative comparison, overall percent agreement (OPA) was calculated. For the quantitative comparison, Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were used.

RESULTS

For IFX and ADL levels, the qualitative overall agreement between methods was 100 % (Cohen's coefficient=1). For anti-IFX and anti-ADL antibodies, OPA was 98.8 % and 97.3 %, respectively. Quantitative comparison indicated a very strong correlation between both assays: IFX (r=0.97, n=74), ADL (r=0.95, n=54), anti-IFX (r=0.93, n=72), and anti-ADL (r=0.97, n=61). The regression analysis determined an excellent comparability of drug levels between methods. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias difference between assays of 6 % for IFX, 0 % for ADL, 24 % for anti-IFX, and 14 % for anti-ADL.

CONCLUSIONS

Monotest CHORUS Promonitor was a reliable assay to quantify IFX, ADL, anti-IFX and anti-ADL in samples with comparable results to those obtained with the reference batch-based ELISA technique.

Measurement of Anti-TNF Biologics in Serum Samples of Pediatric Patients: Comparison of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) with a Rapid and Automated Fluorescence-Based Lateral Flow Immunoassay

Background: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL) mainly relies on the use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). More recently, rapid assays have been developed and validated to reduce turnaround time (TAT). Here, we compared IFX and ADL concentrations measured with both ELISA and a new fluorescence-based lateral flow immunoassay (AFIAS). Methods: In serum samples from pediatric patients, IFX and ADL drug levels, and total anti-IFX antibodies were measured using clinically validated ELISA kits (Immundiagnostik AG). Samples were further analyzed using a new rapid assay (AFIAS, Boditech Med Inc.) to measure drug levels and total anti-IFX antibodies. Results: Spearman's correlation coefficients (rho) were 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 0.99] for IFX (p < 0.001) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90) for ADL (p < 0.001). Calculated % bias was -14.09 (95% Limits of agreement, LoA, -52.83 to 24.66) for IFX and 15.79 (LoA -37.14 to 68.73) for ADL. For the evaluation of total anti-IFX antibodies, we did not collect sufficient data to establish a statistically significant correlation between AFIAS and ELISA. The inter-rater agreement showed a "substantial" and a "moderate" agreement for IFX and ADL, respectively. Conclusions: Our results show that the AFIAS assay has an accuracy and analytical performance comparable to that of the ELISA method used for TDM of IFX and ADL. Therefore, the introduction of this device into routine clinical practice could provide results more quickly and with similar accuracy as ELISA, allowing clinicians to rapidly formulate clinical decisions.

The first WHO reference panel for Infliximab anti-drug antibodies: a step towards harmonizing therapeutic drug monitoring

Immunogenicity testing for anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is mandatory for regulatory approval of a biotherapeutic and can, in some instances, continue post-licensure. Typical examples are TNF inhibitors where biotherapeutic and ADA levels are relevant in clinical decision-making for optimal patient therapy. However, challenges with non-comparability of results due to plethora of bioanalytical techniques and the lack of standardization has hindered ADA monitoring in clinical practice. Two human anti-infliximab monoclonal antibodies (A, B) with defined characteristics were therefore lyophilized and assessed for suitability as a reference panel for ADA assays in an international study. Binding assays included the simple ELISA and common electrochemiluminescence (ECL) to the rare antigen binding test and lateral flow assays. For neutralisation, competitive ligand binding and reporter-gene assays were employed. Sample testing (e.g., antibodies, sera) showed differential reactivity depending on the assay and sample. Estimates for ADA levels using in-house standards varied substantially among assays/laboratories. In contrast, using antibody A for quantitating ADA levels reduced the interlaboratory variability and provided largely consistent estimates. The degree of harmonization was dependent on the assay, sample and the laboratory. Importantly, antibody A allowed ADA detection when missed using in-house standards. Recognition of sample B varied, possibly due to its fast dissociation. Overall, the panel comprising A (coded 19/234) and B (coded 19/232) was suitable and established by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization in October 2022 as the WHO international reference panel for infliximab ADA assays. Sample A (coded 19/234) with an arbitrarily assigned unitage of 50,000IU/ampoule for binding activity and 50,000 IU/ampoule for neutralising activity is intended as a 'common standard' for assay characterization and where possible for calibration of anti-infliximab preparations to facilitate comparison and harmonization of results across infliximab ADA assays. Sample B (19/232) with its unique characteristics and variable detection but no assigned unitage is intended for assessing the suitability of the assay for detecting ADAs with fast dissociation. It is anticipated that this panel would help towards selecting and characterizing suitable assays, benchmarking of in-house standards where feasible and in harmonizing ADA assays used in clinical practice for better patient outcome globally.

Biologics in the management of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: When and what to choose

Pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, with rising global incidence and prevalence. Over the past two decades, biologics have added to the therapeutic armamentarium and revolutionized the approach to treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. The available biologics include monoclonal antibodies which target inflammatory cytokines (anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha, anti-interleukin 12/23) or recruitment of leucocytes to the gastrointestinal tract (anti-alpha4beta7 integrin) and small molecules (Janus kinase inhibitors, sphingosine 1-phosphate-inhibitors) which modify the proinflammatory signaling. Considering their potential disease-modifying ability, recent pediatric guidelines from the West have advocated upfront use of biologics in appropriate clinical scenarios as a top-down approach rather than the conventional step-up approach. Although real-world studies are available regarding the clinical efficacy of biologics in PIBD, there is paucity of long-term outcome and safety data in children. Also, little information is available about the best approach in the newly industrialized - developing countries where PIBD is rising but at the same time, infections are prevalent and resources are limited. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety profile of biologics and small molecule drugs and discuss the challenges in the management of PIBD, especially in the developing world, and future directions.

Model-informed precision dosing in inflammatory bowel diseases

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) primarily aims to optimize dosing. However, several unmet needs remain. These include the identification of optimal drug concentrations, accounting for variability in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), and the frequent delays between sampling and clinical decision-making. Recent technical advances, such as population PK/PD modeling and model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) tools developed from such models, as well as point-of-care (POC) and self-sampling assays and novel software programs, offer potential solutions. Successful implementation of these innovations may help to establish MIPD for patients with IBD. This would enable personalized dosing, advancing a one-size-fits-all approach to TDM that currently is inadequate to fulfill the needs for every patient with IBD.

Comparing Point-of-Care Technology to ELISA Testing for Infliximab and Adalimumab Levels in Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Prospective Pilot Study

Introduction: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has proven to be a valuable strategy for optimizing biologic therapies, among which are anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatments in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In particular, reactive TDM has been shown to manage treatment failures more cost-effectively than empirical dose adjustments for anti-TNF drugs. However, several challenges currently impede the widespread adoption of TDM in clinical practice, particularly addressing the delay between sample collection and result availability. To overcome this limitation, the use of point-of-care technology tests (POCTs) is a potential solution. Point-of-care technology tests are medical diagnostic tests performed at the site of patient care to provide immediate results, allowing for quicker decision-making and treatment. The current standard of care (SOC) for drug level measurement relies on the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a method that is time-consuming and requires specialized personnel. This study aims to evaluate a novel, user-friendly, and efficient POCT method (ProciseDx Inc.) and compare its performance with the SOC ELISA in assessing infliximab and adalimumab levels in blood samples from IBD patients. Methods: In this prospective, single-center study, we collected blood samples from IBD patients, both CD and UC, receiving infliximab (87 IBD patients; 50% UC and 50% CD) or adalimumab (60 patients; 14% UC and 48% CD) and we analyzed the blood's drugs levels using both the ProciseDx Analyzer POC and the SOC ELISA. We examined the correlation between the two methods using statistical analyses, including the Deming regression test. Additionally, we assessed the ease of use, turnaround time, and overall practicality of the POCT in a clinical setting. Results: The ProciseDx test demonstrated a strong correlation with the SOC ELISA for measuring both infliximab and adalimumab levels. In particular, the overall correlation between the ProciseDx POCT and the ELISA assessments showed an r coefficient of 0.83 with an R squared value of 0.691 (95% CI 0.717-0.902) for IFX measurements, and an r coefficient of 0.85 with an R squared value of 0.739 (95% CI 0.720-0.930). Conclusions: the ProciseDx POC test offers significantly faster turnaround times and is more straightforward to use, making it a viable alternative for routine clinical monitoring. Despite its promising potential, further refinement and validation of the ProciseDx test are necessary to ensure its effectiveness across diverse patient populations and clinical settings. Future research should focus on optimizing the POC tests' performance and evaluating its long-term impact on IBD management.

Best Practice for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab: Position Statement from the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology

BACKGROUND

Infliximab, an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody, has revolutionized the pharmacological management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This position statement critically reviews and examines existing data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab in patients with IMIDs. It provides a practical guide on implementing TDM in current clinical practices and outlines priority areas for future research.

METHODS

The endorsing TDM of Biologics and Pharmacometrics Committees of the International Association of TDM and Clinical Toxicology collaborated to create this position statement.

RESULTS

Accumulating data support the evidence for TDM of infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, with limited investigation in other IMIDs. A universal approach to TDM may not fully realize the benefits of improving therapeutic outcomes. Patients at risk for increased infliximab clearance, particularly with a proactive strategy, stand to gain the most from TDM. Personalized exposure targets based on therapeutic goals, patient phenotype, and infliximab administration route are recommended. Rapid assays and home sampling strategies offer flexibility for point-of-care TDM. Ongoing studies on model-informed precision dosing in inflammatory bowel disease will help assess the additional value of precision dosing software tools. Patient education and empowerment, and electronic health record-integrated TDM solutions will facilitate routine TDM implementation. Although optimization of therapeutic effectiveness is a primary focus, the cost-reducing potential of TDM also merits consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of TDM for infliximab necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, hospital pharmacists, and (quantitative) clinical pharmacologists to ensure an efficient research trajectory.

Infliximab monitoring in Crohn's disease: a neural network approach for evaluating disease activity and immunogenicity

Background

The treatment for Crohn's disease (CD) has increasingly required the use of biological agents. Safe and affordable tests have led to the active implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in clinical practice, which, although not yet widely available across all health services, has been proven effective.

Objective

To analyze serum infliximab (IFX) and antidrug antibody (ADA) levels in CD patients, compare two tests, as well as construct a prediction of neural network using a combination of clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory variables.

Design

Cross-sectional observational study.

Method

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on 75 CD patients in the maintenance phase of IFX treatment. The participants were allocated into two groups: CD in activity (CDA) and in remission (CDR). Disease activity was defined by endoscopic or radiological criteria. Serum IFX levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and rapid lateral flow assay; ADA levels were measured by ELISA. A nonparametric test was used for statistical analysis; p value of ⩽0.05 was considered significant. Differences between ELISA and rapid lateral flow results within the measurement range were assessed by the Wilcoxon test, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman method. Prediction models were created using four neural network sets. Neural networks and performance receiver operating characteristic curves were created using the Keras package in Python software.

Results

Most participants exhibited supratherapeutic IFX levels (>7 mg/mL). Both tests showed no difference in IFX levels between the CDA and CDR groups (p > 0.05). The use of immunosuppressive therapy did not affect IFX levels (p > 0.05). Only 14.66% of patients had ADA levels >5 AU/mL, and all ADA-positive participants exhibited subtherapeutic IFX levels in both tests. The median results of both tests showed significant differences and moderate agreement (r = -0.6758, p < 0.001). Of the four neural networks developed, two showed excellent performance, with area under the curve (AUCs) of 82-92% and 100%.

Conclusion

Most participants exhibited supratherapeutic IFX levels, with no significant serum level difference between the groups. There was moderate agreement between tests. Two neural network sets showed disease activity and the presence of ADA, noninvasively determined in patients using IFX by presenting an AUC of >80%.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel diseases. Position statement of the Spanish Working Group on Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis

The treatment of inflammatory bowel disease has undergone a significant transformation following the introduction of biologic drugs. Thanks to these drugs, treatment goals have evolved from clinical response and remission to more ambitious objectives, such as endoscopic or radiologic remission. However, even though biologics are highly effective, a significant percentage of patients will not achieve an initial response or may lose it over time. We know that there is a direct relationship between the trough concentrations of the biologic and its therapeutic efficacy, with more demanding therapeutic goals requiring higher drug levels, and inadequate exposure being common. Therapeutic drug monitoring of biologic medications, along with pharmacokinetic models, provides us with the possibility of offering a personalized approach to treatment for patients with IBD. Over the past few years, relevant information has accumulated regarding its utility during or after induction, as well as in the maintenance of biologic treatment, in reactive or proactive strategies, and prior to withdrawal or treatment de-escalation. The aim of this document is to establish recommendations regarding the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, in different clinical practice scenarios, and to identify areas where its utility is evident, promising, or controversial.

Observational Study to Compare Biological Drug Concentration Quantification Techniques and Immunogenicity in Patients with Immune-Mediated Diseases

Measuring biological drugs' trough concentrations and the concentrations of anti-drug antibodies is a valuable practice for treatment optimization. ELISA techniques are the gold standard for biological drug concentration quantification, but new techniques such as chemiluminescence immunoassays present some advantages. The aim of this unicentric prospective observational study is to compare the infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab trough levels and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibodies concentrations obtained when using a chemiluminescent instrument (i-TRACK®, Theradiag, Croissy-Beaubourg, France) and an ELISA instrument (TRITURUS®, Griffols, Barcelona, Spain). Linear regression, Pearson or Spearman tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Cohen kappa test were applied for every sample. The correlation was excellent for both assays in the measurement of all drug concentrations. In general, values were lower when measured using i-TRACK than when using TRITURUS, especially when the values were high. Both techniques proved valuable in clinical practice for monitoring adalimumab and infliximab drug concentration. However, the results were modest for ustekinumab and vedolizumab, so caution is recommended and further research is needed. The limited number of anti-drug antibody-positive samples precluded a comparison between the techniques.

Performance of a New Rapid Point-of-Care Test for Infliximab Levels in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparison to ELISA

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab levels in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) optimizes patients' treatment. The reference technique is based on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) although point of care (POC) assays are being developed.

AIMS

To assess the performance of a new rapid immunochromatographic POC assay (Promonitor Quick IFX) compared with ELISA technique to measure infliximab levels in patients with IBD.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, unicentric study was performed on capillary blood samples from patients with IBD before infliximab infusion (trough levels). Infliximab levels and anti-infliximab antibodies were measured using the ELISA technique (Promonitor IFX) and the POC assay. Correlation between both techniques was assessed by Pearson's coefficient. Quantitative differences were evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. Samples were stratified according to infliximab therapeutic ranges (< 3 μg/mL, 3-8 μg/mL, and > 8 μg/mL).

RESULTS

A total of 135 experimental samples were assessed. Infliximab levels showed a high correlation between POC and ELISA tests (r = 0.84, P < 0.001). The mean difference between tests was 1.46 μg/mL (P < 0.001), being minimal for concentrations < 8 μg/mL. POC and ELISA assays showed an overall concordance of 87.4%. Most samples were in the same therapeutic range, which lead to equivalent therapeutic decisions. POC and ELISA assays detected the presence of anti-infliximab antibodies in 2.2% and 3.7% of the samples, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

POC assay results in blood samples from patients with IBD were comparable to those obtained with the reference ELISA technique. The POC assay could be considered for routine testing based on its ease of use and rapidity.

Comparative study of a point-of-care test and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for infliximab levels

BACKGROUND

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is often challenged by long turnaround time when using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), especially when analyses are centralised. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) allow rapid assessments, but data on their agreement with existing in-house methodologies are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the agreement between a POCT by ProciseDx (San Diego, CA) and the most frequently used in-house ELISA for infliximab (IFX) quantification in Sweden.

METHODS

Serum samples were analysed using the in-house ELISA, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden and a POCT by ProciseDx (San Diego, CA). Agreement was assessed and differences were examined.

RESULTS

Samples from 61 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients were analysed with a median IFX concentration of 7.9 μg/mL (interquartile range (IQR) 5.5-13) for the POCT and 7.9 μg/mL (IQR 5.2-12) for the ELISA (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.97, p < .01)). A Passing-Bablok regression yielded an intercept of -0.44 and a slope of 1.09. The Bland-Altman plot showed a systemic bias of -0.77 μg/mL (95% CI -0.18 to -1.4) between the methods. The upper limit of agreement was 3.7 (95% CI 2.7-4.8) (μg/mL), whereas the lower limit agreement was -5.3 (95% CI -6.3 to -4.3) (μg/mL). An excellent reliability was observed, intraclass correlation showed = 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.96, p < .0001). When defining IFX concentration as subtherapeutic (<3.0 μg/mL), therapeutic (3.0-7.0 μg/mL) or supratherapeutic (>7.0 μg/mL) drug levels, Kappa statistics showed a substantial agreement (0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

The POCT by ProciseDx (San Diego, CA) demonstrated a good agreement with the in-house ELISA, supporting its use for rapid IFX quantification.

Point-of-care therapeutic drug monitoring of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors using a single step immunoassay

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα)-inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab is important to establish optimal drug dose and maximize treatment efficacy. Currently, TDM is primarily performed with ELISA techniques in clinical laboratories, resulting in a long sample-to-result workflow. Point-of-care (POC) detection of these therapeutic antibodies could significantly decrease turnaround times and allow for user-friendly home-testing. Here, we adapted the recently developed bioluminescent dRAPPID (dimeric Ratiometric Plug-and-Play Immunodiagnostics) sensor platform to allow POC TDM of infliximab and adalimumab. We applied the two best performing dRAPPID sensors, with limit-of-detections of 1 pM and 17 pM, to measure the infliximab and adalimumab levels in 49 and 40 patient serum samples, respectively. The analytical performance of dRAPPID was benchmarked with commercial ELISAs and yielded Pearson's correlation coefficients of 0.93 and 0.94 for infliximab and adalimumab, respectively. Furthermore, a dedicated bioluminescence reader was fabricated and used as a readout device for the TDM dRAPPID sensors. Subsequently, infliximab and adalimumab patient serum samples were measured with the TDM dRAPPID sensors and bioluminescence reader, yielding Pearson's correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.86 for infliximab and adalimumab, respectively, and small proportional differences with ELISA (slope was 0.97 ± 0.09 and 0.96 ± 0.20, respectively). The adalimumab and infliximab dRAPPID sensors, in combination with the dedicated bioluminescence reader, allow for ease-of-use TDM with a fast turnaround time and show potential for POC TDM outside of clinical laboratories.

A Review of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Receiving Combination Therapy

Background: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) impacts millions worldwide, presenting a major challenge to healthcare providers and patients. The advent of biologic therapies has enhanced the prognosis, but many patients exhibit primary or secondary non-response, underscoring the need for rigorous monitoring and therapy optimization to improve outcomes. Objective: This narrative review seeks to understand the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in optimizing treatment for IBD patients, especially for those on combination therapies of biologics and immunomodulators. Methods: A comprehensive synthesis of the current literature was undertaken, focusing on the application, benefits, limitations, and future directions of TDM in patients receiving a combination of biologic therapies and immunomodulators. Results: While biological therapies have improved outcomes, rigorous monitoring and therapy optimization are needed. TDM has emerged as a pivotal strategy, enhancing outcomes cost-effectively while reducing adverse events. While most data pertain to monotherapies, TDM's applicability also extends to combination therapy. Conclusion: TDM plays a crucial role in the treatment optimization of IBD patients on combination therapies. Further research is needed to fully understand its potential and limitations in the broader context of IBD management.

Inaccuracies in plasma oxytocin extraction and enzyme immunoassay techniques

Numerous studies have reported extensive associations between plasma oxytocin (OXT) concentrations and various human physiological and neurobehavioral processes. Measurement of OXT is fraught with difficulty due to its low molecular weight and plasma concentrations, with no consensus as to the optimal conditions for pre-analytical sample extraction, standards for immunoassay validation or the ideal protease inhibitors to prevent OXT degradation. Previous attempts at determining the efficacy of various purification techniques such as solid phase extraction (SPE) or ultrafiltration have only utilized human plasma samples, making it difficult to dissect out whether the effect of interference comes from the extraction process itself or cross-reactivity with other proteins. By testing these on pure OXT solutions, we demonstrate poor recovery efficacy and reliability of reversed phase SPE (maximum 58.1%) and ultrafiltration (<1%) techniques, and the potential for the former to introduce interference into enzyme immunoassay (EIA) measurements. The clonality of antibodies used in EIA kits also potentially contributes to the differences in the readings obtained, and we validate an EIA kit which did not require pre-analytical sample extraction with low cross-reactivity and high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.980 (95% CI 0.896-0.999). Biochemical techniques used for measuring plasma OXT concentrations must therefore be internally validated prior to translation into clinical studies.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Anti-TNFα Inhibitors: A Matter of Cut-Off Ranges

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a useful tool for optimising the use of anti-TNFα inhibitors in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). Recently, point-of-care methods for the quantification of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) have been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays (ELISAs). Here, we evaluated the performance, interchangeability, and agreement between an automated ELISA-based immunoassay (CHORUS Promonitor) and the lateral flow assay (RIDA^®QUICK) for the quantification of infliximab (IFX, n = 65) and adalimumab (ADM, n = 58) plasma levels in IBD patients. Thirty-two samples for IFX and twenty-three samples for ADM that tested positively for the presence of ADAs were also used. Overall, data analysis showed a good agreement of ADM trough concentrations (R² = 0.75) between the two assays as well as for ADA measurement (K > 0.8). However, IFX levels highlighted a weak correlation (R² = 0.58) between the two kits, with the RIDA^®QUICK assay overestimating IFX plasma values by 30% when compared to the CHORUS Promonitor kit. Results from this study show that the two assays are not quantitatively and qualitatively interchangeable due to substantial discrepancies in some results. Accordingly, the same assay should be used for the longitudinal follow-up of IBD patients.

Anti-Drug Antibodies in the Biological Therapy of Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases are a cluster of heterogeneous disorders that share some clinical symptoms such as pain, tissue damage, immune deregulation, and the presence of inflammatory mediators. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are some of the most effective treatments for rheumatic diseases. However, their molecular and pharmacological complexity makes them potentially immunogenic and capable of inducing the development of anti-drug antibodies. TNF inhibitors appear to be the main contributors to immunogenicity because they are widely used, especially in rheumatoid arthritis. Immunogenicity response on these treatments is crucial since the appearance of ADAs has consequences in terms of safety and efficacy. Therefore, this review proposes an overview of the immunogenicity of biological agents used in autoimmune rheumatic diseases highlighting the prevalence of anti-drug antibodies.

EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

OBJECTIVE

To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale.

RESULTS

Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals.

CONCLUSION

These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM.

PERFUSE: a French non-interventional study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving infliximab biosimilar SB2: a 12-month analysis

Background

Flixabi^TM (SB2) is a biosimilar of the reference infliximab (IFX), Remicade^®. Published evidence on long-term, real-world use of SB2 in patients either IFX naive or transitioned from prior IFX is scarce.

Objectives

We evaluated persistence, effectiveness, and safety of SB2 over 12 months in adults with IBD [Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)], participating in PERFUSE.

Design

PERFUSE is a long-term, non-interventional, multicenter study of patients receiving SB2 at specialist sites across France.

Methods

SB2 treatment was initiated in September 2017, either as first IFX treatment (IFX naive), after transition from treatment with reference IFX (IFX ref) or another IFX biosimilar (IFX bs), or both IFX ref and IFX bs (IFX multiswitch). Outcomes up to Month 12 (±2) include persistence on SB2 (primary outcome measure), SB2 dose, disease status, immunogenicity, and safety.

Results

This final 12-month analysis of patients with IBD includes 569 with CD and 168 with UC. Persistence [95% confidence interval (CI)] at Month 12 was CD: 89% (77.2; 94.9), UC: 78.5% (58.2; 89.8) for IFX naive; CD: 94% (91.0; 96.1), UC: 92.8% (84.8; 96.7) for IFX ref; CD: 91.6% (86.0; 95.0), UC: 94.2% (83.1; 98.1) for IFX bs; and CD 100% (100; 100), UC 100% (100; 100) for IFX multiswitch. In the CD and UC cohorts, disease activity among IFX naive patients declined from baseline to Month 12; with any prior IFX, the proportions of patients in remission at baseline, Month 6, and Month 12 remained unchanged in the UC cohort, and were comparable or higher in the CD cohort. No immunogenicity or safety signals were detected.

Conclusions

Patients with IBD can be initiated on SB2 or transitioned from IFX ref and/or IFX bs to SB2, with no loss of disease control or safety concerns, with >75% of naive and >90% of transitioned patients continuing on SB2 treatment at 12 months.

Assessing Immunogenicity of Biologic Drugs in Inflammatory Joint Diseases: Progress Towards Personalized Medicine

Biologic drugs have greatly improved treatment outcomes of inflammatory joint diseases, but a substantial proportion of patients either do not respond to treatment or lose response over time. Drug immunogenicity, manifested as the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), constitute a significant clinical problem. Anti-drug antibodies influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug, are associated with reduced clinical efficacy, and an increased risk of adverse events such as infusion reactions. The prevalence of ADAb differs among drugs and diseases, and the detection of ADAb also depends on the assay format. Most data exist for the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab, with a frequency of ADAb that ranges from 10 to 60% across studies. Measurement of ADAb and serum drug concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring, has been suggested as a strategy to optimize therapy with biologic drugs. Although the recent randomized clinical Norwegian Drug Monitoring (NOR-DRUM) trials show promise towards a personalized medicine prescribing approach by therapeutic drug monitoring, several challenges remain. A plethora of assay formats, with widely differing properties, is currently used for measuring ADAb. Comparing results between different assays and laboratories is difficult, which complicates the development of cut-offs necessary for guidelines and the implementation of ADAb measurements in clinical practice. With the possible exception of infliximab, limited data on clinical relevance and cost effectiveness exist to support therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine clinical strategy to monitor biologic drugs in inflammatory joint diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and prevalence of ADAb, predisposing factors to ADAb formation, commonly used assessment methods, clinical consequences of ADAb, and the potential implications of ADAb assessments for everyday treatment of inflammatory joint diseases.

Validation Study of a New Random-Access Chemiluminescence Immunoassay Analyzer i-TRACK10® to Monitor Infliximab and Adalimumab Serum Trough Levels and Anti-Drug Antibodies

Background. Monitoring of biological TNF inhibitors is a very important tool to guide clinical decisions using specialized algorithms, especially in gastroenterology. A new chemiluminescent instrument (i-TRACK^10® from Theradiag) could replace ELISA techniques to calculate the dosage of drugs and anti-drug antibodies. In this bi-centric study, we explored the analytical performances of i-TRACK^10® using manual or automated (DS2^®) ELISA Lisa-Tracker^® assays, and compared the results. Patients and methods. Intra- and inter-run performances were evaluated with i-TRACK^10® in two different laboratories and for two different ranges of values for infliximab, adalimumab, and their respective antibodies. Patients’ samples were used in the labs to compare the results obtained between the new instrument and either the manual Lisa-Tracker^® or the automated DS2. Results. Intra- and inter-run performances were satisfactory, with values between 1.8% and 16.1% (for inter-run imprecision at low/medium values of infliximab). Results were generally comparable between assays. with the lowest value of correlation at 0.59 (anti-adalimumab dosage between i-TRACK^10® and manual ELISA). Most often, values of drugs and anti-drug antibodies were higher with i-TRACK^10® than with manual ELISA assay, and correlation values were better with automated ELISA. Agreements were globally acceptable, and the lowest coefficients of 0.7 was obtained for adalimumab values between i-TRACK^10® and the two ELISA methods, and for anti-adalimumab values between i-TRACK^10® and manual ELISA. The type of assay can potentially induce a change in the class of patients and lead to divergent therapeutic decisions. Conclusions. The new random-access instrument i-TRACK^10® presents many advantages in a routine laboratory: rapidity, the possibility of standardization, usability, and expansion of the measurement range. Despite the relatively good agreement of results, it is preferable to use the same assay in longitudinal follow-up of a patient, because quantitative results were not completely equivalent especially for anti-drug antibodies.

Atomic Force Microscopy Application for the Measurement of Infliximab Concentration in Healthy Donors and Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The use of infliximab has completely changed the therapeutic landscape in inflammatory bowel disease. However, despite its proven efficacy to induce and maintain clinical remission, increasing evidence suggests that treatment failure may be associated with inadequate drug blood concentrations. The introduction of biosensors based on different nanostructured materials for the rapid quantification of drugs has been proposed for therapeutic drug monitoring. This study aimed to apply atomic force microscopy (AFM)-based nanoassay for the measurement of infliximab concentration in serum samples of healthy donors and pediatric IBD patients. This assay measured the height signal variation of a nanostructured gold surface covered with a self-assembled monolayer of alkanethiols. Inside this monolayer, we embedded the DNA conjugated with a tumor necrosis factor able to recognize the drug. The system was initially fine-tuned by testing known infliximab concentrations (0, 20, 30, 40, and 50 nM) in buffer and then spiking the same concentrations of infliximab into the sera of healthy donors, followed by testing pediatric IBD patients. A good correlation between height variation and drug concentration was found in the buffer in both healthy donors and pediatric IBD patients (p-value < 0.05), demonstrating the promising use of AFM nanoassay in TDM.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologics in Crohn's Disease

Reactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is considered the standard of care for optimizing biologics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) including Crohn's disease (CD). Preliminary data show that proactive TDM is associated with positive outcomes in IBD and can be also used to efficiently guide therapeutic decisions in specific clinical scenarios. Higher biological drug concentrations are associated with favorable therapeutic outcomes in specific IBD populations or phenotypes including pediatric CD, perianal fistulizing CD, small bowel CD, and following an ileocolonic resection for CD. Future perspectives of TDM include the use of rapid testing, pharmacogenomics, and pharmacokinetic dashboards toward individualized therapy.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider

The objectives of this review were to collect and summarise evidence on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and to inform the EULAR Task Force for the formulation of evidence-based points to consider. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, covering technical aspects and (clinical) utility of TDM, to answer 13 research questions. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched until July 2020. American College of Rheumatology and EULAR abstracts were also considered for inclusion. Data were extracted in evidence tables and risk of bias assessment was performed. For the search on technical aspects, 678 records were identified, of which 22 papers were selected. For the clinical utility search, 3846 records were identified, of which 108 papers were included. Patient-related factors associated with biopharmaceutical blood concentrations included body weight, methotrexate comedication and disease activity. The identification of a target range was hampered by study variability, mainly disease activity measures and study type. Evidence was inconsistent for multiple clinical situations in which TDM is currently applied. However, for some particular scenarios, including prediction of future treatment response, non-response to treatment, tapering and hypersensitivity reactions, robust evidence was found. There is currently no evidence for routine use of proactive TDM, in part because published cost-effectiveness analyses do not incorporate the current landscape of biopharmaceutical costs and usage. This SLR yields evidence in favour of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in some clinical scenarios, but evidence is insufficient to support implementation of routine use of TDM.

Editorial: is there a role for monitoring intermediate anti-TNF drug concentrations in IBD? Authors' reply

This article is linked to Roblin et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16852 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16889

Therapeutic drug monitoring in Crohn's disease patients treated with anti-TNF: a comparison of two techniques

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring is a useful clinical decision aid in managing patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF). Various techniques are available to evaluate drug trough levels, and among these a point-of-care (POC) method has been proposed to overcome the limitations inherent to other methodologies. In this study we aimed to evaluate the capability of POC to discriminate between relapse and remission disease phases, and to assess the concordance of the POC and homogeneous mobility shift assay (HMSA) results.

METHODS

Drug trough level of 46 Crohn's disease patients treated with either adalimumab or infliximab were evaluated with both a POC technique and an HMSA at various time points (week-16 and -48) during anti-TNF treatment.

RESULTS

Median adalimumab trough level of patients in remission were significantly higher as compared to relapsing patients using both HMSA (week 16, P = 0.0001; week48, P = 0.001) and POC (week 16, P = 0.0003; week 48, P = 0.0012), and similar results were observed with infliximab trough level at week 16 (HMSA, P = 0.019; POC, P = 0.0072). Overall, we observed a good correlation between the techniques for both infliximab (r = 0.76; P  < 0.0001) and adalimumab (r = 0.75; P  < 0.0001), with no difference in discriminatory accuracy between assays (infliximab: HMSA versus POC c-index, 0.921 versus 0.895, P =0.149; adalimumab: HMSA versus POC c-index, 0.817 versus 0.850, P = 0.197).

CONCLUSION

Both POC and HMSA assays are able to reliably differentiate relapse and remission phases in Crohn's disease patients treated with anti-TNF. These techniques showed good concordance and we feel that their preferential use should be based on local accessibility, physicians' experience and preference, and the need for timeliness availability of results.

Ultra-proactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab Based on Point of Care Testing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results of a Pragmatic Trial

BACKGROUND

With point of care testing [POCT] for infliximab [IFX], ultraproactive therapeutic drug monitoring [TDM] with ad-hoc dose optimisation is possible in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of an ultraproactive TDM algorithm of IFX based on POCT with reactive TDM in patients with IBD, in a pragmatic clinical trial.

METHODS

All patients with IBD and maintenance IFX treatment were included between June and August 2018 in two centres. Centre A applied an ultra-proactive TDM algorithm incorporating POCT, and centre B applied reactive TDM. Primary endpoint was failure of IFX therapy after 1 year. Secondary endpoints included sustained clinical remission and mucosal remission.

RESULTS

In total 187 patients [n = 115/72 cohort A/B] were included. Cohort A had more trough level [TL] measurements compared with cohort B [8.8 vs 1/patient/year; p <0.0001], leading to a significant higher number of dose optimisations. POCT testing was required in 27% after the first round of ultra-proactive TDM and in a mean of 6.3% (standard deviation [SD] 1.9) in the subsequent rounds. Ad-hoc extra dosing was needed in 13% of the POCT. After 1 year, no difference was seen between cohort A and cohort B in IFX failure [19% vs 10%; p = 0.08], nor in sustained clinical remission [75% vs 83%; p = 0.17]. Mucosal remission was evaluated in 71 patients [38%], and was more frequent in the reactive TDM cohort [p = 0.02].

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-proactive TDM in patients with IBD and maintenance IFX treatment leads to equal clinical outcomes as reactive TDM after 1 year of follow-up.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease: unmet needs and future perspectives

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has emerged as a useful tool for optimising the use of biologics, and in particular anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, challenges remain and are hindering the widespread implementation of TDM in clinical practice. These barriers include identification of the optimal drug concentration to target, the lag time between sampling and results, and the proper interpretation of anti-drug antibody titres among different assays. Solutions to overcome these barriers include the harmonisation of TDM assays and the use of point-of-care testing. Other unmet needs include well designed prospective studies and randomised controlled trials focusing on proactive TDM, particularly during induction therapy. Future studies should also investigate the utility of TDM for biologics other than anti-TNF therapies in both IBD and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, and the use of pharmacokinetic modelling dashboards and pharmacogenetics towards individual personalised medicine.

Optimizing therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease: a focus on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is useful for optimizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, TDM in clinical practice is still restricted by long turnaround times between sampling and results and the fact that dosing of mAbs to a target drug concentration is challenging due to high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability at both a population and patient level. Overcoming these barriers may be addressed by point-of-care (POC) assays, model-informed precision dosing (MIPD), and pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the optimization of TDM of mAbs in IBD including POC testing, MIPD, and pharmacogenetics.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent advances in sampling, quantification, and support of clinical decisions include POC assays and PK dashboards, which may allow for prompt and precise application of TDM in clinical practice. Future perspectives toward a more personalized implementation of TDM could include the incorporation of pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics to identify subgroups of patients who would benefit more from proactive TDM or combination therapy such as those prone to immunogenicity and/or accelerated drug clearance. However, there are still challenges regarding the implementation of these innovative approaches, and more data from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are needed.

Point-of-Care Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Precision Dosing of Immunosuppressive Drugs

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive drugs (ISD) are an essential tool in the treatment of transplant rejection and immune-mediated diseases. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for determination of ISD concentrations in biological samples is an important instrument for dose personalization for improving efficacy while reducing side effects. While currently ISD concentration measurements are performed at specialized, centralized facilities, making the process complex and laborious for the patient, various innovative technical solutions have recently been proposed for bringing TDM to the point-of-care (POC).

CONTENT

In this review, we evaluate current ISD-TDM and its value, limitations, and proposed implementations. Then, we discuss the potential of POC-TDM in the era of personalized medicine, and provide an updated review on the unmet needs and available technological solutions for the development of POC-TDM devices for ISD monitoring. Finally, we provide concrete suggestions for the generation of a meaningful and more patient-centric process for ISD monitoring.

SUMMARY

POC-based ISD monitoring may improve clinical care by reducing turnaround time, by enabling more frequent measurements in order to obtain meaningful pharmacokinetic data (i.e., area under the curve) faster reaction in case of problems and by increasing patient convenience and compliance. The analysis of the ISD-TDM field prompts the evolution of POC testing toward the development of fully integrated platforms able to support clinical decision-making. We identify 4 major areas requiring careful combined implementation: patient usability, data meaningfulness, clinicians' acceptance, and cost-effectiveness.

Comparison of a new rapid method for determination of serum anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibodies with two established ELISA kits

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADL), infliximab (IFX) and their biosimilars are widely used biological drugs. Some patients, however, generate neutralizing antibodies that hamper the effectiveness of these drugs. Evidence shows therapeutic drug monitoring of serum levels ADL/IFX and anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is useful to improve treatment effectiveness. We evaluated a new rapid quantitative method, Quantum Blue (QB), for determining serum anti-ADL and anti-IFX antibodies (Research Use Only labelling) by comparing it with two established ELISA kits, Promonitor (PM) and Lisa-Tracker (LT).

METHODS

Eighty samples (40 for each drug type) were analysed. Percentage of agreement and kappa statistic were used to compare positive/negative ADA results. Clinical implications for drug treatment in the patients with discordant results were evaluated. The Chi-square test was used to analyze differences for ADA detection in patients with disease flare and without concomitant immunosuppressant treatment.

RESULTS

Agreement exceeded 80 % among anti-ADL methods. Although LT ELISA showed a lower capacity in detecting anti-ADL antibodies, discrepancies were found for levels close to the cut-off concentration, thus having minimal impact on clinical decisions. Conversely, QB anti-IFX displayed low agreement with PM and LT ELISA kits (67.5 % and 50 %, respectively), and was unable to detect high levels of antibodies, therefore having major clinical implications. Agreement between PM and LT ELISA anti-IFX kits was 82.5 % with all discordant results being undetected for PM and slightly positive for LT.

CONCLUSION

QB anti-ADL shows similar performance to ELISA kits while QB anti-IFX needs further improvements to achieve reliable antibody detection.

Comparison of three immunoassays for infliximab trough level monitoring in paediatric inflammatory bowel diseases

Many clinical studies in paediatric inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) use infliximab trough level (IFX-TL) and detection of antibody against infliximab (ATI). Hence, comparison of commercially available assays is needed in paediatric samples to assess their reliability and their comparability. We measured IFX-TL and ATI-TL in sera samples of 53 IBD children using three ELISA kits: Lisa-Tracker® Duo Infliximab (Theradiag®), Ridascreen® IFX monitoring (R-Biopharm®) and Promonitor® IFX (Grifols®). Regarding IFX-TL, median values were comparable (p > 0.05), a good statistical correlation has been observed (0.73 ≤ R² ≤ 0.85) between tested assays and the Bland-Altman analysis found an excellent agreement with a bias estimated between -0.56 and 0.12 and few values outside the 95% limits of agreement. However, qualitative comparison with therapeutic interval classifications showed some discrepancies (30.2%), mainly due to values near thresholds and more often than not with Theradiag® (22.6%). For ATI, because of non-standardized units, the qualitative comparison found a sensibly good agreement (98.1%). These data show a good agreement of IFX-TL and ATI measurement between three marketed ELISA assays with a small bias obtained. Variations in some results can lead to divergent therapeutic interval classifications and prompt us to be cautious in the interpretation of values near therapeutic thresholds.

Personalized Medicine of Monoclonal Antibodies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Pharmacogenetics, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, and Beyond

The pharmacotherapy of inflammatory bowel diseases (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis) has experienced significant progress with the advent of monoclonal antibodies (mABs). As therapeutic proteins, mABs display peculiar pharmacokinetic characteristics that differentiate them from chemical drugs, such as aminosalicylates, antimetabolites (i.e., azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate), and immunosuppressants (corticosteroids and cyclosporine). However, clinical trials have demonstrated that biologic agents may suffer from a pharmacokinetic variability that could influence the desired clinical outcome, beyond primary resistance phenomena. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) protocols have been elaborated and applied to adaptation drug doses according to the desired plasma concentrations of mABs. This activity is aimed at maximizing the beneficial effects of mABs while sparing patients from toxicities. However, some aspects of TDM are still under discussion, including time-changing therapeutic ranges, proactive and reactive approaches, the performance and availability of instrumental platforms, the widely varying individual characteristics of patients, the severity of the disease, and the coadministration of immunomodulatory drugs. Facing these issues, personalized medicine in IBD may benefit from a combined approach, made by TDM protocols and pharmacogenetic analyses in a timeline that necessarily considers the frailty of patients, the chronic administration of drugs, and the possible worsening of the disease. Therefore, the present review presents and discusses the activities of TDM protocols using mABs in light of the most recent results, with special attention on the integration of other actions aimed at exploiting the most effective and safe therapeutic effects of drugs prescribed in IBD patients.

Advances in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Biologic Therapies for Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

In the current era of treat-to-target strategies, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has emerged as a potential tool in optimizing the efficacy of biologics for children diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The incorporation of TDM into treatment algorithms, however, has proven to be complex. "Proactive" TDM is emerging as a therapeutic strategy due to a recently published pediatric RCT showing a clear benefit of "proactive" TDM in anti-TNF therapy. However, target therapeutic values for different biologics for different disease states [ulcerative colitis (UC) vs. Crohn's disease (CD)] and different periods of disease activity (induction vs. remission) require further definition. This is especially true in pediatrics where the therapeutic armamentarium is limited, and fixed weight-based dosing may predispose to increased clearance leading to decreased drug exposure and subsequent loss of response (pharmacokinetic and/or immunogenic). Model-based dosing for biologics offers an exciting insight into dose individualization thereby minimizing the chances of losing response. Similarly, point-of-care testing promises real-time assessment of drug levels and individualized decision-making. In the current clinical realm, TDM is being used to prolong drug durability and efficacy and prevent loss of response. Ongoing innovations may transform it into a personalized tool to achieve optimal therapeutic endpoints.

How, When, and for Whom Should We Perform Therapeutic Drug Monitoring?

The implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the inflammatory bowel disease practice has evolved over the years. In the early days, the focus was merely on measuring and reporting drug concentrations. Later, these concentrations were considered in light of target concentrations that are related to clinical response. This not only allowed passively predicting a patient's future response, but it also triggered physicians and pharmacists to actively use the information to optimize the drug dosage to induce and maintain a clinical response in the future. Although reactive TDM, testing at time of loss of response, is widely accepted in practice, especially for anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies, there are less data for the other monoclonal antibodies belonging to other classes. Besides reactive testing, there is a movement toward proactively adjusting biologic dosing to prevent loss of response, in keeping with the tight control philosophy of inflammatory bowel disease care. This review highlights the various assays available to measure drug concentrations and antidrug antibodies, as well as algorithmic approaches to TDM, the unmet needs and required studies to enable pharmacokinetics principles to be applied in the future.

Laboratory Monitoring of Biological Therapies in Rheumatology: The Role of Immunogenicity

Biological drugs, such as proteins and immunogens, are increasingly used to treat various diseases, including tumors and autoimmune diseases, and biological molecules have almost completely replaced synthetic drugs in rheumatology. Although biological treatments such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs seem to be quite safe, they cause some undesirable effects, such as the onset of infections due to weakening of the immune system. Given the biological nature of these drugs, they might be recognized as extraneous; this would induce an immune reaction that neutralizes their effectiveness or lead to more serious consequences. Laboratories play a pivotal role in appropriate therapeutic management. The aim of this review was to underline the production of anti-drug antibodies during treatment with biological drugs and highlight the role of laboratories in ensuring appropriate use of these drugs.

TDM of Anti-TNF Agents: The Importance of Being Active!

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for anti-TNFα agents hass gained an increased momentum; although it is surely recommended in case of loss of response, its usefulness during maintenance therapy is still debated. Fernandes et al have added useful information in this regard.

Proactive Infliximab Drug Monitoring Is Superior to Conventional Management in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence supports the use of reactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) following secondary loss of response. It is still unknown if proactive TDM can improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients completing infliximab (IFX) induction therapy were prospectively allocated into a proactive TDM protocol (pTDM). Before the fourth infusion and every 2 infusions, IFX trough levels and antidrug antibodies were measured using a drug-sensitive assay (Theradiag, Lisa Tracker). Treatment was proactively escalated aiming at an IFX trough level between 3 and 7 ug/mL (CD) and 5 and 10 ug/mL (UC). A retrospective cohort treated with IFX but without TDM served as the reference group. End points included the need for surgery, hospitalization, treatment discontinuation, and mucosal healing at 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Two hundred five patients were included, 56 in the proactive regimen. Treatment escalation was more common in pTDM patients (76.8% vs 25.5%; P < 0.001), who also required less surgery (8.9% vs 20.8%; P = 0.032) and presented higher rates of mucosal healing (73.2% vs 38.9%; P < 0.0001). Proactive TDM significantly decreased the odds of reaching any unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 0.358; 95% confidence interval, 0.188-0.683; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive TDM is associated with fewer surgeries and higher rates of mucosal healing than conventional non-TDM-based management.

Determination of Serum Infliximab Concentration by Point-of-care Devices in Children With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

OBJECTIVES

Therapeutic drug monitoring is becoming increasingly important in clinical decision-making in children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays do not allow results to be provided in real-time. We sought to compare 2 point-of-care (POC) devices for quantification of serum infliximab concentration with 2 validated ELISA assays in children with IBD.

METHODS

We studied 32 serum samples from 19 children with IBD treated with infliximab. Serum samples were collected immediately before drug infusion (trough level). Infliximab was measured using 2 POC infliximab assays, Quantum Blue (POC IFX/QB) and Rida Quick (POC IFX/RQ), and 2 ELISA assays: Lisa-Tracker (used as primary reference), and Promonitor (used as second control). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed for quantitative comparison. Qualitative analysis was also performed to evaluate whether POC assays would correctly classify infliximab serum according to a target window (between 3 and 7 μg/mL).

RESULTS

ICC was 0.82 and 0.87 for POC IFX/QB and POC IFX/RQ with the primary reference ELISA assay, respectively; ICC between the 2 ELISA assays was 0.87. Classification of results according to therapeutic intervals showed good agreement between pairs of assays, with kappa of 0.67 and 0.80 for POC IFX/QB and POC IFX/RQ, respectively, with reference ELISA, and 0.81 between the 2 ELISAs. Accuracy of POC assays was better for drug levels <3 μg/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

POC infliximab assays showed good agreement with traditional ELISA assays. POC devices may represent a viable option for real-time therapeutic drug monitoring in children treated with infliximab.

Comparison of a new rapid method for the determination of adalimumab serum levels with two established ELISA kits

Background

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of adalimumab (ADA) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has gained increased attention since several studies showed a correlation between drug levels and mucosal healing. The limitations of routine usage of enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) kits for measuring serum ADA concentrations have prompted the development of rapid methods, such as Quantum Blue (QB). We evaluated the interchangeability and agreement between the QB method and two established ELISA kits, Promonitor (PM) and Lisa-Tracker (LT).

Methods

Fifty samples from patients with IBD were included. Quantitative analysis was performed using the ANOVA test for repeated measures, Deming regression and the Bland-Altman plot. Clinical implications were evaluated by concordance in classifying patients into therapeutic windows according to the proposed cut-off levels for subtherapeutic (either <5 or <7.5 μg/mL) and supratherapeutic (>12 μg/mL) ranges.

Results

Statistical differences were detected between the QB method and the two ELISA kits, with QB overestimating ADA serum values compared to them. A lack of interchangeability was observed between methods, with greater differences as ADA levels increased. An analysis of a sub-set of samples with ADA values below 9 μg/mL (n = 25) showed that QB fulfilled the criteria to be interchangeable with the LT assay. Concordance for patient classification into ADA therapeutic windows was better for QB vs. LT than for QB vs. PM, with high agreement (>75%) for subtherapeutic levels among the three methods.

Conclusions

Although quantitative differences existed between the rapid method and ELISA kits that hampered their interchangeability, the agreement for identifying patients with subtherapeutic values of ADA was high.

Analytical and clinical performance evaluation of two POC tests for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab

Background

Infliximab (IFX) is an effective therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Serum IFX trough concentrations correlate well with clinical, biological and endoscopic outcomes. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab is useful for dose optimization and prevention of secondary treatment failure. In the present study, analytical and clinical performance of two point-of-care (POC) tests, RIDA®QUICK IFX Monitoring assay (R-biopharm) and Quantum Blue® Infliximab assay (Bühlmann), have been evaluated and compared to our established enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (apDia IFX ELISA).

Methods

Analytical performance was assessed according to the CLSI EP5-A2 protocol using the manufacturer’s kit controls and different serial dilution series. Method comparison with our established ELISA was done using a wide range of consecutive patient samples (n=180). Clinical concordance was evaluated by categorization based on well-known therapeutic cut-off points (3–7 μg/mL).

Results

The analytical performance of both POC tests was inferior to the established ELISA, but acceptable based on the manufacturer’s quality claims. Eight-point serial dilution confirmed the analytical performance data in the low-level measuring range. Eleven-point serial dilution demonstrated linearity for both POC tests over the studied concentration range. Method comparison with the ELISA showed significant negative proportional bias for the RIDA®QUICK IFX Monitoring assay. However, good correlation and clinical concordance were shown. Quantum Blue® Infliximab assay showed a significant positive proportional and a negative systematic bias in comparison with the ELISA, resulting in overestimation of IFX levels with impact on clinical concordance data.

Conclusions

Both POC tests have their own specific benefits and drawbacks but are suitable for therapeutic drug monitoring of IFX. However, long-term monitoring of IFX trough levels requires measurement of IFX concentrations with the same assay.