Increased versus conventional adalimumab dose interval for patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission (LADI): a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

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.

A Prediction Model for Successful Increase of Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Patients with Crohn's Disease: Secondary Analysis of the Pragmatic Open-Label Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority LADI Trial

BACKGROUND

In the pragmatic open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority LADI trial we showed that increasing adalimumab (ADA) dose intervals was non-inferior to conventional dosing for persistent flares in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in clinical and biochemical remission.

AIMS

To develop a prediction model to identify patients who can successfully increase their ADA dose interval based on secondary analysis of trial data.

METHODS

Patients in the intervention group of the LADI trial increased ADA intervals to 3 and then to 4 weeks. The dose interval increase was defined as successful when patients had no persistent flare (> 8 weeks), no intervention-related severe adverse events, no rescue medication use during the study, and were on an increased dose interval while in clinical and biochemical remission at week 48. Prediction models were based on logistic regression with relaxed LASSO. Models were internally validated using bootstrap optimism correction.

RESULTS

We included 109 patients, of which 60.6% successfully increased their dose interval. Patients that were active smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.90), had previous CD-related intra-abdominal surgeries (OR 0.85), proximal small bowel disease (OR 0.92), an increased Harvey-Bradshaw Index (OR 0.99) or increased faecal calprotectin (OR 0.997) were less likely to successfully increase their dose interval. The model had fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.63) and net benefit analysis showed that the model could be used to select patients who could increase their dose interval.

CONCLUSION

The final prediction model seems promising to select patients who could successfully increase their ADA dose interval. The model should be validated externally before it may be applied in clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

The Clinical Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials

Noninferiority trials are designed to demonstrate that a new treatment is not unacceptably worse than a standard treatment, considering an allowable difference termed the noninferiority margin. We highlight that selection of noninferiority margins at the time of study design can be biased toward wider margins that favor noninferiority claims. We discuss a clinically oriented approach to interpretation of results with a focus on confidence intervals and recommend that readers base their judgments regarding noninferiority on margins reflecting patient values and preferences rather than those set by investigators. We provide examples from trials in inflammatory bowel diseases.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Increased Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Crohn's Disease Patients in Stable Remission: The Randomized Controlled LADI Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn's disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission.

DESIGN

We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels.

RESULTS

We randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: -0.017, 95% confidence interval [-0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (-€943, [-€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (-€2545, [-€2780; -€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost-utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [-€2099; €2050], €69 [-€2908; €1965] and -€455 [-€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

When the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

The cost of inflammatory bowel disease in high-income settings: a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission

The cost of caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to increase worldwide. The cause is not only a steady increase in the prevalence of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in both developed and newly industrialised countries, but also the chronic nature of the diseases, the need for long-term, often expensive treatments, the use of more intensive disease monitoring strategies, and the effect of the diseases on economic productivity. This Commission draws together a wide range of expertise to discuss the current costs of IBD care, the drivers of increasing costs, and how to deliver affordable care for IBD in the future. The key conclusions are that (1) increases in health-care costs must be evaluated against improved disease management and reductions in indirect costs, and (2) that overarching systems for data interoperability, registries, and big data approaches must be established for continuous assessment of effectiveness, costs, and the cost-effectiveness of care. International collaborations should be sought out to evaluate novel models of care (eg, value-based health care, including integrated health care, and participatory health-care models), as well as to improve the education and training of clinicians, patients, and policy makers.