De-escalation from Dose-Intensified Anti-TNF Therapy Is Successful in the Majority of IBD Patients at 12 Months

Common Instances of Low-value Care in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Value-based care focuses on improving the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of health care while controlling costs. Low-value care implies services or interventions that provide little or no benefit to patients, have the potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary cost to patients, or waste limited health care resources. In this review, we discuss common instances of low-value care along the spectrum of management in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). These include low value care in: (1) diagnosis and monitoring of IBD: utilization of serological markers to screen and diagnose IBD, over-reliance on symptoms for monitoring disease, failure to employ treat-to-target strategies in symptomatic patients with IBD, and annual surveillance colonoscopies in patients at low risk of developing dysplasia; (2) treatment of IBD: use of 5-aminosalicylates in Crohn's disease, continuation of 5-aminosalicylates after escalation to immunosuppressive therapy, chronic corticosteroid use without steroid-sparing strategies, step therapy for Crohn's disease, failure to optimize tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients with active disease and subsequently de-intensification of therapies in those who have achieved stable remission; and (3) management of hospitalized patients with IBD: routine cross-sectional imaging for patients with IBD presenting to the emergency department, withholding pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with IBD flare, and prolonged use of high-dose intravenous corticosteroids in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. This review is meant to bring attention to value-based care in IBD and provide guidance to treating practitioners. Future studies on systematic evaluation of high- and low-value care in patients with IBD are warranted.

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.

De-escalation of Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapy is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. However due to cost and safety concerns, dose de-escalation strategies after achieving remission have been suggested.

AIM

To critically review available data on dose de-escalation of biologics [or other advanced therapies] in IBD. We will focus on studies evaluating de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially optimised, and also on studies assessing de-escalation from standard dosing.

METHODS

A systematic bibliographic search was performed.

RESULTS

The mean frequency of de-escalation after previous dose intensification [12 studies, 1,474 patients] was 34%. The corresponding frequency of de-escalation from standard dosing [five studies, 3,842 patients] was 4.2%. The relapse rate of IBD following anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially dose-escalated [10 studies, 301 patients] was 30%. The corresponding relapse rate following anti-TNF de-escalation from standard dosing [nine studies, 494 patients] was 38%. The risk of relapse was lower for patients in clinical, biologic, and endoscopic/radiological remission at the time of de-escalation. A role of anti-TNF therapeutic drug monitoring in the decision to dose de-escalate has been demonstrated. In patients relapsing after de-escalation, re-escalation is generally effective. De-escalation is not consistently associated with a better safety profile. The cost-effectiveness of the de-escalation strategy remains uncertain. Finally, there is not enough evidence to recommend dose de-escalation of biologics different from anti-TNFs or small molecules.

CONCLUSIONS

Any consideration for de-escalation of biologic therapy in IBD must be tailored, taking into account the risks and consequences of a flare and patients' preferences.