Precision Dosing of Anti-TNF Therapy in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Challenges in IBD Research 2024: Precision Medicine

Precision medicine is part of 5 focus areas of the Challenges in IBD Research 2024 research document, which also includes preclinical human IBD mechanisms, environmental triggers, novel technologies, and pragmatic clinical research. Building on Challenges in IBD Research 2019, the current Challenges aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) research and deliver actionable approaches to address them with a focus on how these gaps can lead to advancements in interception, remission, and restoration for these diseases. The document is the result of multidisciplinary input from scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders, and represents a valuable resource for patient-centric research prioritization. In particular, the precision medicine section is focused on the main research gaps in elucidating how to bring the best care to the individual patient in IBD. Research gaps were identified in biomarker discovery and validation for predicting disease progression and choosing the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Other gaps were identified in making the best use of existing patient biosamples and clinical data, developing new technologies to analyze large datasets, and overcoming regulatory and payer hurdles to enable clinical use of biomarkers. To address these gaps, the Workgroup suggests focusing on thoroughly validating existing candidate biomarkers, using best-in-class data generation and analysis tools, and establishing cross-disciplinary teams to tackle regulatory hurdles as early as possible. Altogether, the precision medicine group recognizes the importance of bringing basic scientific biomarker discovery and translating it into the clinic to help improve the lives of IBD patients.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Biomarkers; towards Better Dosing of Antimicrobial Therapy

Due to variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical outcomes of antimicrobial drug therapy vary between patients. As such, personalised medication management, considering both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, is a growing concept of interest in the field of infectious diseases. Therapeutic drug monitoring is used to adjust and individualise drug regimens until predefined pharmacokinetic exposure targets are achieved. Minimum inhibitory concentration (drug susceptibility) is the best available pharmacodynamic parameter but is associated with many limitations. Identification of other pharmacodynamic parameters is necessary. Repurposing diagnostic biomarkers as pharmacodynamic parameters to evaluate treatment response is attractive. When combined with therapeutic drug monitoring, it could facilitate making more informed dosing decisions. We believe the approach has potential and justifies further research.

Is tumor necrosis factor-α monoclonal therapy with proactive therapeutic drug monitoring optimized for inflammatory bowel disease? Network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) monoclonal antibody therapy [adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX)] with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), which has been proposed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, are still controversial.

AIM

To determine the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody therapy with proactive TDM in patients with IBD and to determine which subtype of IBD patients is most suitable for proactive TDM interventions.

METHODS

As of July 2023, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to compare anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody therapy with proactive TDM with therapy with reactive TDM or empiric therapy. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were used to determine the IBD patient subtype that achieved clinical remission and to determine the need for surgery.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis yielded 13 studies after exclusion, and the baseline indicators were balanced. We found a significant increase in the number of patients who achieved clinical remission in the ADA [odds ratio (OR) = 1.416, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.196-1.676] and RCT (OR = 1.393, 95%CI: 1.182-1.641) subgroups and a significant decrease in the number of patients who needed surgery in the proactive vs reactive (OR = 0.237, 95%CI: 0.101-0.558) and IFX + ADA (OR = 0.137, 95%CI: 0.032-0.588) subgroups, and the overall risk of adverse events was reduced (OR = 0.579, 95%CI: 0.391-0.858) according to the pairwise meta-analysis. Moreover, the network meta-analysis results suggested that patients with IBD treated with ADA (OR = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.19-1.63) were more likely to undergo TDM, especially in comparison with patients with reactive TDM (OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.07-1.77).

CONCLUSION

Proactive TDM is more suitable for IBD patients treated with ADA and has obvious advantages over reactive TDM. We recommend proactive TDM in IBD patients who are treated with ADA.

Prospective study to characterize adalimumab exposure in pediatric patients with rheumatic diseases

BACKGROUND

In pediatric rheumatic diseases (PRD), adalimumab is dosed using fixed weight-based bands irrespective of methotrexate co-treatment, disease activity (DA) or other factors that might influence adalimumab pharmacokinetics (PK). In rheumatoid arthritis (RA) adalimumab exposure between 2-8 mg/L is associated with clinical response. PRD data on adalimumab is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze adalimumab PK and its variability in PRD treated with/without methotrexate.

METHODS

A two-center prospective study in PRD patients aged 2-18 years treated with adalimumab and methotrexate (GA-M) or adalimumab alone (GA) for ≥ 12 weeks was performed. Adalimumab concentrations were collected 1-9 (maximum concentration; Cmax), and 10-14 days (minimum concentration; Cmin) during ≥ 12 weeks following adalimumab start. Concentrations were analyzed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (lower limit of quantification: 0.5 mg/L). Log-normalized Cmin were compared between GA-M and GA using a standard t-test.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (14 per group), diagnosed with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (71.4%), non-infectious uveitis (25%) or chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (3.6%) completed the study. GA-M included more females (71.4%; GA 35.7%, p = 0.13). At first study visit, children in GA-M had a slightly longer exposure to adalimumab (17.8 months [IQR 9.6, 21.6]) compared to GA (15.8 months [IQR 8.5, 30.8], p = 0.8). Adalimumab dosing was similar between both groups (median dose 40 mg every 14 days) and observed DA was low. Children in GA-M had a 27% higher median overall exposure compared to GA, although median Cmin adalimumab values were statistically not different (p = 0.3). Cmin values ≥ 8 mg/L (upper limit RA) were more frequently observed in GA-M versus GA (79% versus 64%). Overall, a wide range of Cmin values was observed in PRD (0.5 to 26 mg/L).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed a high heterogeneity in adalimumab exposure in PRD. Adalimumab exposure tended to be higher with methotrexate co-treatment compared to adalimumab monotherapy although differences were not statistically significant. Most children showed adalimumab exposure exceeding those reported for RA with clinical response, particularly with methotrexate co-treatment. This highlights the need of further investigations to establish model-based personalized treatment strategies in PRD to avoid under- and overexposure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04042792 , registered 02.08.2019.