Methotrexate in combination with infliximab is no more effective than infliximab alone in patients with Crohn's disease

Genetic biomarkers of methotrexate response and safety in Crohn's disease: Data from the Spanish ENEIDA registry

AIMS

Methotrexate (MTX) is used to induce and maintain remission in patients with steroid-dependent Crohn's disease (CD). Despite its proven efficacy, its use is limited due to associated adverse events. Polymorphisms involving folate pathway genes might influence MTX efficacy and toxicity. We aimed to assess the impact of certain polymorphisms on the therapeutic outcomes of MTX in CD.

METHODS

Patients with CD who exclusively followed MTX monotherapy and fulfilled inclusion criteria were identified from the GETECCU ENEIDA registry. Variants of ATIC, DHFR, MTHFR, SLC19A1, ABCB1 and ABCC3 genes were analysed and their association with efficacy and toxicity was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were included in the analysis. MTX was used at a median weekly dose of 25 mg (interquartile range, 15-25 mg) and a median time of 14 months (interquartile range, 4-52 months). Thirty-seven percent of the patients achieved disease remission with MTX monotherapy, while 34% were nonresponders (MTX failure). MTX-related toxicity occurred in 40 patients (30%), leading to MTX discontinuation in 19%. DHFR rs408626 (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-7.69; P = .017) and MTHFR rs1801133 (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.23-6.68; P = .015) variants, and smoking (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.12-6.05; P = .026) were associated with a higher risk of MTX failure. Additionally, the MTHFR rs1801131 variant was associated with a higher risk of MTX-related adverse effects (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.26-6.13, P = .011).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that variants of MTHFR and DHFR genes may be associated with MTX efficacy and adverse events in patients with CD.

Real-World Outcomes of Dual Advanced Therapy in Children and Young Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Data are limited on the safety and efficacy of combining advanced therapies for refractory patients with IBD.

AIM

To evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of dual advanced therapy (DAT), combining 2 biologics or a biologic with a small molecule, in children and young adults with refractory IBD.

METHODS

Primary outcome of this single IBD center cohort was DAT remission (clinical and biomarker remission) at first assessment (T1). Secondary outcomes included remission at T2, if DAT de-intensification (De-I) occurred and T3, if T2 DAT re-intensification (Re-I) occurred. Efficacy and safety outcomes were described.

RESULTS

Of the 30 patients [43% female, 30% CD, median age of 18.3 [15.1-19.8] years], all 11 UST + TOFA achieved T1 remission; 6/10 De-I failed at T2; and 4/4 Re-I achieved T3 remission. Of 9 VDZ + TOFA, 6 achieved T1 remission; 5/6 De-I failed at T2; and 1/1 failed T3 Re-I. Of 4 UST + VDZ, 3 achieved T1 remission; 2/3 De-I failed at T2; and 0 had Re-I. Of 5 UST + UPA, 4 achieved T1 remission; 1/5 De-I failed at T2 but recaptured T3 remission post-Re-I. One VDZ + OZA achieved T1 remission and maintained T2 remission post-De-I to OZA monotherapy. At last follow-up, 43% were on original DAT, 17% on one of original DAT, and 40% neither. One UST + TOFA patient developed mild leukopenia and another developed septic arthritis and venous thromboembolism on VDZ + TOFA and prednisone.

CONCLUSION

Most children and young adults treated with DAT achieved remission with minimal safety events; however, de-intensification had limited success.

Combination treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: Present status and future perspectives

The treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially those with severe or refractory disease, represents an important challenge for the clinical gastroenterologist. It seems to be no exaggeration to say that in these patients, not only the scientific background of the gastroenterologist is tested, but also the abundance of "gifts" that he should possess (insight, intuition, determination, ability to take initiative, etc.) for the successful outcome of the treatment. In daily clinical practice, depending on the severity of the attack, IBD is treated with one or a combination of two or more pharmaceutical agents. These combinations include not only the first-line drugs (e.g., mesalazine, corticosteroids, antibiotics, etc) but also second- and third-line drugs (immunosuppressants and biologic agents). It is a fact that despite the significant therapeutic advances there is still a significant percentage of patients who do not satisfactorily respond to the treatment applied. Therefore, a part of these patients are going to surgery. In recent years, several small-size clinical studies, reviews, and case reports have been published combining not only biological agents with other drugs (e.g., immunosuppressants or corticosteroids) but also the combination of two biological agents simultaneously, especially in severe cases. In our opinion, it is at least a strange (and largely unexplained) fact that we often use combinations of drugs in a given patient although studies comparing the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs with monotherapy are very few. As mentioned above, there is a timid tendency in the literature to combine two biological agents in severe cases unresponsive to the applied treatment or patients with severe extraintestinal manifestations. The appropriate dosage, the duration of the administration, the suitable timing for checking the clinical and laboratory outcome, as well as the treatment side-effects, should be the subject of intense clinical research shortly. In this editorial, we attempt to summarize the existing data regarding the already applied combination therapies and to humbly formulate thoughts and suggestions for the future application of the combination treatment of biological agents in a well-defined category of patients. We suggest that the application of biomarkers and artificial intelligence could help in establishing new forms of treatment using the available modern drugs in patients with IBD resistant to treatment.

Medical management of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Management of inflammatory bowel disease, both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), has seen a seismic shift over the past decade. Over the past five years, there has been the introduction of many new therapies with differing mechanisms of action and a goal of achieving mucosal healing, as well as clinical and biochemical remission (1,2). In addition, management is aimed at restoring normal growth and normalizing quality of life. The ultimate goal is to individualize medical management and determine the right drug for the right patient by identifying which inflammatory pathway is predominant and avoiding unwarranted lack of efficacy or side effects through biomarkers and risk prognostication. Patient's age, location of disease, behavior (inflammatory vs. penetrating/structuring), severity and growth delay all play into deciding on the best treatment approach. Ultimately, early intervention is key in preventing complications. The therapeutic approaches to management can be broken down to nutritional therapy, biologic agents, immunomodulators (including corticosteroids), aminosalicylates and antibiotics. There are numerous other therapies, such as small molecule agents recently approved in adults, which are garnering a great deal of interest.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Methotrexate Combined with Biologics in Patients with Crohn's Disease: A Multicenter Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy with biological agents has gained increasing interest. Here, we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the MTX combination therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter observational study with 185 patients with CD with MTX and biologics combination therapy; the patients were recruited from three IBD Clinics in Korea. We evaluated the outcomes of the MTX combination therapy and examined the predictive factors of clinical and endoscopic remission.

RESULTS

MTX was administered orally to 62.7% of patients; the mean dose was 15.5 mg per week, and the mean treatment duration was 36 months. Of the 169 patients treated with MTX combination therapy for over 6 months, the steroid-free clinical remission rates were 34.3%, 26.0%, 29.8%, and 32.7% at 4, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Previous thiopurine use was a significant negatively associated independent factor (p < 0.001), and a higher dose of MTX (≥ 15 mg/week) was a positively associated independent factor of steroid-free clinical remission (p = 0.035). Ninety-six patients underwent follow-up endoscopy after 28 months, and 36 (37.5%) achieved endoscopic remission. Longer disease duration (p = 0.006), ileocolonic type of Montreal location (p = 0.036), and baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) level of more than 5 mg/L (p = 0.035) were significant negatively associated independent factors and a higher dose of MTX (≥ 15 mg/week) was a positively associated independent factor of endoscopic remission (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

MTX combination therapy with biologics was effective and tolerable in patients with CD.

The impact of proactive versus reactive drug monitoring of infliximab on treatment outcomes in patients with crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) plays a crucial role in the management of Crohn's disease (CD) patients receiving infliximab (IFX). While reactive TDM has been more commonly utilized previously, recent research suggests that proactive TDM may offer greater benefits for patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment outcomes among patients receiving different monitoring modalities of IFX.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that enrolled 142 CD patients who initiated IFX therapy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2014 to June 2021. The patients were divided into a reactive (n = 43) and proactive (n = 99) group. The outcome measures included sustained clinical response and remission rates, biological remission rates, endoscopic response and remission rates achieved in both groups at weeks 30 and 54. The incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes in IFX trough concentrations (TCs) and treatment adjustments within 54 weeks were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the proactive group exhibited significantly higher cumulative probabilities of sustained clinical response, sustained clinical remission, and endoscopic response by Week 54. Compared to the reactive group, patients in the proactive group achieved significantly reduced rates of AEs-related hospitalization and surgery. After adjusting treatment strategies, the median concentration and the proportion of patients achieved an effective therapeutic concentration (TC > 3 μg/mL) at Week 54 was both significantly higher in the proactive group.

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive TDM of IFX plays a more crucial role in timely adjustment of treatment strategies and maintenance of effective concentrations, thereby contributing to the outcomes for CD patients.

Anti-infliximab antibodies and low infliximab levels correlate with drug discontinuation in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Infliximab (IFX) use is limited by loss of response often due to the development of anti-IFX antibodies and low drug levels.

METHODS

We performed a single center prospective observational cohort study of pediatric and young adult subjects with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on IFX with over 3 years of follow-up. Infliximab levels (IFXL) and antibodies to infliximab (ATI) were measured throughout the study. Subjects were followed until IFX was discontinued.

RESULTS

We enrolled 219 subjects with IBD (184: Crohn's disease; 33: Ulcerative colitis; and 2 Indeterminant colitis; 84 female, median age 14.4 years, 37% on concomitant immunomodulator). Nine hundred and nineteen serum samples (mean 4.2 ± 2.1 per patient) were tested for IFXL and ATI. During the study, 31 (14%) subjects discontinued IFX. Sixty patients had ATI. Twenty-two of those 60 patients with ATI discontinued IFX; 14 of 31 patients who discontinued IFX had detectable ATI at study onset. The combination of ATI and IFXL < 5 µg/mL at study entry was associated with the highest risk of drug discontinuation (hazard ratios [HR] ATI 4.27 [p < 0.001] and IFXL < 5 µg/mL [HR]: 3.2 p = 0.001). Patients with IFXL 5-10 µg/mL had the lowest rate of discontinuation (6%). IFX dose escalation eliminated ATI in 21 of 60 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

ATI is a strong predictor of needing to stop IFX use and inversely correlates with IFXL. Detection of ATI during therapeutic drug monitoring postinduction but also periodically during maintenance therapy identifies individuals who may benefit from IFX dose escalation and/or the addition of an immunomodulator, as these interventions may reduce or eliminate ATI.

Durability of the First Biologic in Patients with Crohn's Disease: A Nationwide Study from the epi-IIRN

BACKGROUND

In this nationwide study we aimed to compare the durability of the first initiated biologic in Crohn's disease [CD], stratified by monotherapy and combotherapy.

METHODS

We used data from the epi-IIRN cohort, which includes 98% of the Israeli inflammatory bowel disease population [2005-2020]. Durability was defined as consistent treatment without surgery or added medications [except for combination therapy with thiopurines or methotrexate]. All comparisons were based on stringent propensity-score matching and paired time-to-event analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 19 264 patients with CD were included, of whom 7452 [39%] received biologics with a median follow-up of 6.8 years (interquartile range [IQR] 3.6-10.7). Time to biologics decreased gradually from 6.7 years [IQR 2.7-10.4] in 2005 to 0.2 years [0.07-0.23] in 2020. The durability of the first biologic after 1 and 3 years was higher with adalimumab monotherapy [88%/61%] than vedolizumab monotherapy [81%/59%; n = 394 matched patients, p = 0.04] and similar between infliximab monotherapy and vedolizumab monotherapy [65%/43%; n = 182 matched patients, p = 0.1]. Durability was higher in adalimumab monotherapy vs infliximab monotherapy [83%/62% vs 71%/48% at 1/3 years; p <0.001] and it was similar in adalimumab monotherapy vs infliximab combotherapy [87%/63% vs 80%/58%, respectively; p = 0.1]. Durability was higher in combotherapy compared with monotherapy for both infliximab [85%/64% vs 67%/43%, respectively; n = 496 matched pairs, p <0.001], and adalimumab [93%/76% vs 82%/62%, respectively; n = 540 matched pairs, p <0.001].

CONCLUSION

Durability of the first biologic in CD was highest for adalimumab monotherapy. Combotherapy further increased the durability of adalimumab and infliximab. Unless otherwise indicated, our data may support using anti-tumour necrosis factors [TNFs] as first-line biologics in CD, particularly adalimumab if monotherapy is advised.

Controversies in the management of anti-TNF therapy in patients with Crohn's disease: a Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND

Despite research, there are still controversial areas in the management of Crohn's disease (CD).

OBJECTIVE

To establish practical recommendations on using anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs in patients with moderate-to-severe CD.

METHODS

Clinical controversies in the management of CD using anti-TNF therapies were identified. A comprehensive literature review was performed, and a national survey was launched to examine current clinical practices when using anti-TNF therapies. Their results were discussed by expert gastroenterologists within a nominal group meeting, and a set of statements was proposed and tested in a Delphi process.

RESULTS

Qualitative study. The survey and Delphi process were sent to 244 CD-treating physicians (response rate: 58%). A total of 14 statements were generated. All but two achieved agreement. These statements cover: (1) use of first-line non-anti-TNF biological therapy; (2) role of HLA-DQA1*05 in daily practice; (3) attitudes in primary non-response and loss of response to anti-TNF therapy due to immunogenicity; (4) use of ustekinumab or vedolizumab if a change in action mechanism is warranted; (5) anti-TNF drug level monitoring; (6) combined therapy with an immunomodulator.

CONCLUSION

This document sought to pull together the best evidence, experts' opinions, and treating physicians' attitudes when using anti-TNF therapies in patients with CD.

Sustainability of biologic treatment in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease: population-based registry analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the predictors of sustainability of biologic drugs for paediatric patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

METHODS

The Czech National Prospective Registry of Biologic and Targeted Therapy of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (CREdIT) was used to identify the biologic treatment courses in paediatric patients with CD. Mixed-effects Cox models and propensity score analyses were employed to evaluate predictors of treatment sustainability.

RESULTS

Among the 558 observations of 473 patients, 264 were treated with adalimumab (47%), 240 with infliximab (43%), 41 with ustekinumab (7%), and 13 with vedolizumab (2%). Multivariable analysis revealed higher discontinuation risk with infliximab compared to adalimumab (HR = 0.600, 95%CI 0.389-0.926), both overall and in first-line treatment (HR = 0.302, 95%CI 0.103-0.890). Infliximab versus adalimumab was associated with shorter time to escalation (HR = 0.094, 95%CI 0.043-0.203). Propensity-score analysis demonstrated lower sustainability of infliximab (HR = 0.563, 95%CI 1.159-2.725). The time since diagnosis to treatment initiation (HR = 0.852, 95%CI 0.781-0.926) was the most important predictor. Baseline immunosuppressive therapy prolonged sustainability with infliximab (HR = 2.899, 95%CI 1.311-6.410).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the results suggesting shorter sustainability, the need for earlier intensification and thus higher drug exposure, and the greater need for immunosuppression with infliximab than with adalimumab, the choice of these drugs cannot be considered completely equitable.

IMPACT

Our study identified predictors of sustainability of biologic treatment in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease, including adalimumab (versus infliximab), early initiation of biologic treatment, and normalised baseline haemoglobin levels. Infliximab treatment was associated with earlier intensification, higher drug exposure, and a greater need for immunosuppression. Parents and patients should be fully informed of the disadvantages of intravenous infliximab versus adalimumab during the decision-making process. This study emphasises the importance of not delaying the initiation of biologic therapy in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease.

Infliximab for medical induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of people with Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of infliximab alone or in combination with another agent for induction of remission in Crohn's disease compared to placebo or active medical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 August 2021 and 4 March 2023, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing infliximab alone or in combination with another agent to placebo or another active comparator in adults with active Crohn's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response and withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were endoscopic remission, histological remission, endoscopic response, and serious and total adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 10 RCTs with 1101 participants. They were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and 7/10 RCTs included biologically naive participants. All but one RCT, which did not provide information, were multicentre and funded by pharmaceutical companies, and their authors declared conflicts. The age of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years. Results were based on one study unless otherwise stated. Infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg may be more effective than placebo at week four for clinical remission (30/55 versus 3/25; RR 4.55, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.50; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3) and response (36/55 versus 4/25; RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.63 to 10.25, NNTB 3). The evidence was low certainty. The study did not report withdrawals due to adverse events. We could not draw conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg compared to placebo for fistulating participants for clinical remission (29/63 versus 4/31; RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.25; NNTB 4), response (48/106 versus 15/75; RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.41; NNTB 6; 2 studies) or withdrawals due to adverse events (2/63 versus 0/31; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.54). The evidence was very low certainty. Infliximab used in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone for clinical remission at weeks 24 to 26 (182/301 versus 95/302; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.32, NNTB 4; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical response at week 26 (107/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; NNTB 5; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events at week 26 (62/302 versus 53/301; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Infliximab alone may be more effective than purine analogues alone at week 26 for clinical remission (85/177 versus 57/178; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; NNTB 7; 2 studies) and response (94/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.82; NNTB 7; 2 studies). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (30/177 versus 43/178; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06; 4 studies). The evidence was low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) and response (22/27 versus 24/28; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg in an exclusively fistulating population for clinical remission (17/31 versus 12/32; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.53), response (21/31 versus 18/32; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1/31 versus 1/32; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.79). The evidence was very low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) or response (22/27 versus 18/28; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.76). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 10 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (11/28 versus 11/28; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.92) or response (14/28 versus 18/28; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. There may be little or no difference between infliximab and a CT-P13 biosimilar at week six for clinical remission (47/109 versus 49/111; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32), response (67/109 versus 70/111; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) and withdrawals due to adverse events (21/109 versus 17/111; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.25). The evidence was low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Infliximab alone may be more effective in inducing clinical remission and response than purine analogues alone or placebo. Infliximab may be similar in efficacy to a CT-P13 biosimilar and there may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether infliximab alone is effective when used for exclusively fistulating populations. There was evidence that there may be little or no difference in withdrawal due to adverse events between infliximab plus purines compared with purines alone, as well as infliximab alone compared with purines alone. Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn on all other outcomes related to adverse events due to very low certainty evidence.

Therapeutic effects of biological treatments on AA amyloidosis associated with inflammatory bowel disease: a case report and literature review

AA amyloidosis is a rare and significant complication of long-term inflammation that can be caused by a variety of disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease, and is linked to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. To date, there has been no effective direct treatment, and treatment aims at treating the underlying condition with potent immunosuppression to limit inflammatory activity and, as a result, switch off amyloidogenesis. Theoretically, biological treatment can control AA amyloidosis by inducing and maintaining inflammatory bowel disease remission and inhibiting the synthesis of Serum Amyloid A, which is an acute phase reactant and precursor protein of AA amyloidosis that accumulates in the organs. We report the first case of ustekinumab's therapeutic effect after infliximab's loss of response in AA amyloidosis associated with Crohn's disease. We also conducted a literature review of the therapeutic effect of biological treatment on AA amyloidosis.

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.

Relapse rates after withdrawal versus maintaining biologic therapy in IBD patients with prolonged remission

Biologic treatment withdrawal in inflammatory bowel disease patients with prolonged remission may lead to benefits but also increases the risk of getting a relapse. The risk of relapse after biologic withdrawal according to the Dutch STOP-criteria is still unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the cumulative incidence of relapse in inflammatory bowel disease patients that discontinued biologic therapy after applying the STOP-criteria with patients who maintained biologic therapy. We performed a mono-centre, observational, retrospective study by evaluating relapse risk of patients treated with biologic agents who discontinued this treatment according to the STOP-criteria (STOP-group) compared to patients who were in remission for more than 3 years before withdrawal (LATERSTOP-group) and patients who continued their biologic (MAINTAIN-group). The cumulative risk was calculated at 12 and 36 months using the log-rank test to compare Kaplan-Meier curves. Eighty-three of 398 patients that used biologics between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2020 were included. The cumulative relapse incidences in the STOP-group and the LATERSTOP-group were, respectively, 29% and 42% at 12 months and 47% versus 58% at 36 months. Patients in the MAINTAIN-group showed a lower (p = 0.03) cumulative relapse incidence of 10% at 12 months and 18% at 36 months. Patients who discontinued their biologic therapy according to the STOP-criteria had significantly more relapses at 12 and 36 months than patients who maintained biologic treatment.

Combination Therapy With Immunomodulators Improves the Pharmacokinetics of Infliximab But Not Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess how 6-thioguanine nucleotide (6-TGN) levels and use of oral methotrexate relate to the pharmacokinetics of biologics.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study including patients with inflammatory bowel diseases on maintenance doses of infliximab, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab on monotherapy or combination with a thiopurine or oral methotrexate. We collected 6-TGN concentrations, biomarker levels, and clinical and endoscopic disease activity. The primary outcomes were infliximab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab concentrations as well as anti-drug antibodies (ADAs).

RESULTS

A total of 369 patients were recruited (113 infliximab, 133 vedolizumab, and 123 ustekinumab). Patients with 6-TGN levels ≥146 pmol per 8 × 108 red blood cells (RBCs), and those receiving combination therapy with thiopurine or oral methotrexate had significantly higher infliximab concentrations when compared with monotherapy (median levels of 17.4 μg/mL on thiopurine with 6-TGN ≥146 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, 17.1 on methotrexate, and 3.9 on infliximab monotherapy; P = .001 for both comparisons). However, there was no association between the use of immunomodulators and 6-TGN concentrations with vedolizumab (median levels of 8.8 on thiopurine with 6-TGN ≥152 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, 6.8 on methotrexate, and 10.5 on vedolizumab monotherapy; P > .05 for both comparisons) or ustekinumab median concentrations (median levels of 5.0 on thiopurine with 6-TGN ≥154 pmol per 8 × 108 RBCs, 5.2 on methotrexate and 7.0 on ustekinumab monotherapy; P > .05 for both comparisons). Fourteen (12%) patients had anti-infliximab antibodies, while 1 patient had ADAs in each of the other drug cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving higher 6-TGN levels or the use of methotrexate improved the pharmacokinetics of infliximab. Conversely, these data do not support the use of combination therapy to augment pharmacokinetics with vedolizumab or ustekinumab.

Efficacy of Combined Initial Treatment of Methotrexate with Infliximab in Pediatric Crohn's Disease: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The combination of antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) agents with immunomodulators (IMMs) is a common treatment for pediatric Crohn's disease (CD). Although methotrexate (MTX) can be a first-line medication as an IMM, most clinicians in real-life practice, especially in South Korea, are more familiar with thiopurines. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and immunogenicity of MTX and azathioprine (AZA) as concurrent therapies for pediatric CD.

METHODS

In this pilot study, 29 newly diagnosed pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe CD were randomized to receive either MTX (n = 15) (15 mg/body surface area (BSA) per week) or oral AZA (n = 14) (0.5 mg/kg per day) in combination with Infliximab (IFX). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients in endoscopic, biochemical, and transmural remission after 14 and 54 weeks of IFX therapy. The trough levels (TLs) of IFX and anti-drug antibody (ADA) levels were also compared.

RESULTS

Among the 29 patients, there were no significant differences in the biochemical (p = 1.0 at week 14, p = 0.45 at week 54), endoscopic (p = 0.968 at week 14, p = 0.05 at week 54), or transmural (p = 0.103 at week 54) remission rates between the two medications during the concurrent therapy. Additionally, the trends in the IFX trough and ADA levels over time during the treatments were similar for both medications, with no significant differences (p = 0.686, p = 0.389, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The MTX showed comparable efficacy to the AZA in pediatric CD patients with moderate-to-severe disease. This effectively maintained adequate IFX levels and reduced ADA production. Therefore, although additional large-scale clinical trials are needed, this study demonstrated that either MTX or AZA can be selected as IMMs in the concurrent treatment of pediatric CD, depending on individual medical institutions' circumstances.

Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-TNF in Combination With Low-Dose Methotrexate vs Anti-TNF Monotherapy in Pediatric Crohn's Disease: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab, are a mainstay of pediatric Crohn's disease therapy; however, nonresponse and loss of response are common. As combination therapy with methotrexate may improve response, we performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pragmatic trial to compare tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with oral methotrexate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with pediatric Crohn's disease initiating infliximab or adalimumab were randomized in 1:1 allocation to methotrexate or placebo and followed for 12-36 months. The primary outcome was a composite indicator of treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included anti-drug antibodies and patient-reported outcomes of pain interference and fatigue. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were collected.

RESULTS

Of 297 participants (mean age, 13.9 years, 35% were female), 156 were assigned to methotrexate (110 infliximab initiators and 46 adalimumab initiators) and 141 to placebo (102 infliximab initiators and 39 adalimumab initiators). In the overall population, time to treatment failure did not differ by study arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05). Among infliximab initiators, there were no differences between combination and monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.55-1.56). Among adalimumab initiators, combination therapy was associated with longer time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81). A trend toward lower anti-drug antibody development in the combination therapy arm was not significant (infliximab: odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07; adalimumab: odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.07). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Combination therapy resulted in more AEs but fewer SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adalimumab but not infliximab initiators, patients with pediatric Crohn's disease treated with methotrexate combination therapy experienced a 2-fold reduction in treatment failure with a tolerable safety profile.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT02772965.

The Role of Low-Dose Oral Methotrexate in Increasing Anti-TNF Drug Levels and Reducing Immunogenicity in IBD

Concomitant immunomodulation is utilised in combination with anti-TNF therapy for IBD primarily to increase drug levels and prevent anti-drug antibody formation. Whilst thiopurines have traditionally been the immunomodulator of choice in IBD populations, there are concerns regarding the long-term safety of the prolonged use of these agents: particularly an association with lymphoproliferative disorders. Given this, we have explored the existing literature on the use of low-dose oral methotrexate as an alternative immunomodulator for this indication. Although there is a lack of data directly comparing the efficacies of methotrexate and thiopurines as concomitant immunomodulators, the available literature supports the use of methotrexate in improving the pharmacokinetics of anti-TNF agents. Furthermore, low-dose oral methotrexate regimens appear to have comparable efficacies to higher-dose parenteral administration and are better tolerated. We suggest that clinicians should consider the use of low-dose oral methotrexate as an alternative to thiopurines when the primary purpose of concomitant immunomodulation is to improve anti-TNF pharmacokinetics.

Infliximab vs adalimumab: Points to consider when selecting anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease

Biologic agents with various mechanisms against Crohn’s disease (CD) have been released and are widely used in clinical practice. However, two anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), are the only biologic agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration for pediatric CD currently. Therefore, in pediatric CD, the choice of biologic agents should be made more carefully to achieve the therapeutic goal. There are currently no head-to-head trials of biologic agents in pediatric or adult CD. There is a lack of accumulated data for pediatric CD, which requires the extrapolation of adult data for the positioning of biologics in pediatric CD. From a pharmacokinetic point of view, IFX is more advantageous than ADL when the inflammatory burden is high, and ADL is expected to be advantageous over IFX in sustaining remission in the maintenance phase. Additionally, we reviewed the safety profile, immunogenicity, preference, and compliance between IFX and ADL and provide practical insights into the choice of anti-TNF therapy in pediatric CD. Careful evaluation of clinical indications and disease behavior is essential when prescribing anti-TNF agents. In addition, factors such as the efficacy of induction and maintenance of remission, safety profile, immunogenicity, patient preference, and compliance play an important role in evaluating and selecting treatment options.

Comparative efficacy and safety of combination therapy with infliximab for Crohn's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There is not enough information to position medications for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). Therefore, using a network meta-analysis and systematic review, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy and infliximab (IFX) monotherapy in CD patients.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CD patients who were given IFX-containing combination therapy versus IFX monotherapy. Induction and maintenance of clinical remission were the efficacy outcomes, while adverse events were the safety outcomes. The surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities was used to assess ranking in the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 15 RCTs with 1586 CD patients were included in this study. There was no statistical difference between different combination therapies in induction and maintenance of remission. In terms of inducing clinical remission, IFX + EN (SUCRA: 0.91) ranked highest; in terms of maintaining clinical remission, IFX + AZA (SUCRA: 0.85) ranked highest. There was no treatment that was significantly safer than the others. In terms of any adverse events, serious adverse events, serious infections, and infusion/injection-site reactions, IFX + AZA (SUCRA: 0.36, 0.12, 0.19, and 0.24) was ranked lowest for all risks; while IFX + MTX (SUCRA: 0.34, 0.06, 0.13, 0.08, 0.34, and 0.08) was rated lowest for risk of abdominal pain, arthralgia, headache, nausea, pyrexia, and upper respiratory tract infection.

CONCLUSION

Indirect comparisons suggested that efficacy and safety of different combination treatments are comparable in CD patients. For maintenance therapies, IFX + AZA was ranked highest for clinical remission and lowest for adverse events. Further head-to-head trials are required.

Recent Advances in the Optimization of Anti-TNF Treatment in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Despite the evolution in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management during the last 20 years owing to the advent of new advanced therapies, anti-TNF agents still remain the cornerstone of therapy for both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. However, this does not only secure favorable outcomes for patients considering the progressive disease character and the high likelihood of primary or secondary loss of response. Therefore, trying to reach a better treatment approach and maximize the benefits anti-TNF agents offer, optimization strategies should be examined. It has been indicated that optimizing treatment with anti-TNF enhances drug efficacy and has been associated with improved disease outcomes and a complication-free disease course. From this perspective, we aim to provide an overview of currently available data and recent advances in the practices of anti-TNF treatment optimization. Special focus has been given to the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), as well as the utility of combining anti-TNF with an immunomodulator and the treat-to-target approach.

Treatment Options in Pediatric Behçet's Disease

Behçet's disease is a rare and poorly understood vasculitis affecting blood vessels of all types and sizes. Uveitis and oral and genital ulcers represent the typical clinical triad. Populations along the ancient trading route connecting the Mediterranean basin with the Middle and Far East are most affected. Up to a quarter of the cases has a pediatric onset, typically around puberty. The aim of the treatment is early intervention to control inflammation, with symptom relief and prevention of relapses, damage, and complications. The heterogeneous clinical presentation often requires a multidisciplinary and tailored approach. Ocular, neurological, gastrointestinal, and vascular involvement is associated with a worse prognosis and needs more aggressive treatments. In young patients with expected prolonged disease, treatment should also focus on preventive measures and lifestyle advice. In recent years, the pharmacological armamentarium has grown progressively, although only a limited number of drugs are currently authorized for pediatric use. Most evidence for these drugs still derives from adult studies and experience; these are prescribed as off-label medications and are only available as adult formulations. Corticosteroids frequently represent the mainstay for the management of the initial acute phases, but their potential serious adverse effects limit their use to short periods. Different conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have long been used. Many other biologic drugs targeting different cytokines such as interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and interleukin-17 and treatments with small molecules including the phosphodiesterase 4 and Janus kinase inhibitors are emerging as novel promising therapeutic agents. In recent years, a growing interest has developed around anti-tumor necrosis factor agents that have often proven to be effective in severe cases, especially in those with a gastrointestinal and ocular involvement.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics for moderate to severe Crohn's disease

Crohn's disease (CD) is a relapsing and progressive condition characterized by diarrhea, abdominal pain, weight loss, and hematochezia that results in serious complications such as perforations, fistulas, and abscesses. Various medications, interventions, and surgical treatments have been used to treat CD. The Korean guidelines for CD management were distributed in 2012 and revised in 2017 by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases. Substantial progress in mucosal immunologic research has elucidated the pathophysiology of IBD, leading to development of biological agents for treatment of CD. The first developed biologic agent, tumor necrosis factor-α agents, were shown to be efficacious in CD, heralding a new era in management of CD. Subsequently, vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against integrin α4β7, and ustekinumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the common p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23, were both approved for clinical use and are efficacious and safe for both induction and maintenance of remission in moderate-to-severe CD patients. Moreover, a recent study showed the non-inferiority of CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, compared with infliximab in CD patients. The third Korean guidelines for CD management provide updated information regarding treatment of moderate-to-severe CD patients with biologic agents.

Combination therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: Current evidence and perspectives

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) are chronic nonspecific intestinal inflammatory diseases with a relapsing-remitting course, including Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD). Combination therapy has been proposed as a strategy to enhance treatment efficacy in IBD. The aim of this study is to summarize current evidence and perspectives on combination therapies in IBD.

METHODS

Electronic databases such as PubMed, Ovid Embase, Medline, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched to identify relevant studies.

RESULTS

Current evidence supports that the combination of infliximab and thiopurines is more effective than monotherapy in inducing and maintaining remission in IBD. Data on the combination of other biological agents such as adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and immunosuppressors is lacking or showed conflicting results. Vedolizumab seems a potentially effective maintenance regimen after calcineurin inhibitors-based rescue therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC). Dual Targeted Therapy, which is the combination of two biological agents and/or small molecules, might be a reasonable choice in patients with concomitant IBD and extraintestinal manifestations, or in patients with medical-refractory IBD who lack valid alternatives. Some safety concerns such as adverse events (serious and opportunistic infections) and malignancies (lymphoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer) were raised in combination therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapies seem to be effective in some IBD patients such as refractory IBD patients or patients with extraintestinal manifestations, but it might be associated with an increased risk of adverse events and malignancies.

A scoping review on early inflammatory bowel disease: definitions, pathogenesis, and impact on clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) arise from a dysregulation of the balance between commensal microbiota and mucosal-associated immune system, in patients with genetic and environmental predisposition. Different pathophysiological mechanisms have been reported to influence disease history, with impact on disease phenotype and risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to summarize the definitions of early CD and UC, analyze the underlying immunological mechanisms, and evaluate the impact of recognizing and treating early inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on patients' prognosis (short- and long-term outcomes).

DESIGN

To address this issue, we have performed a scoping review.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Three online databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect) were searched and the results were independently screened by two reviewers.

RESULTS

From 683 records identified, 42 manuscripts evaluating early IBD in adult patients were included. The 'early CD' concept was first described in 2008. Four years later, an international consensus proposed the definition of diagnosis up to 18 months, in patients without previous or current need for disease-modifying therapies. Several other definitions have been proposed; the '2 years since diagnosis' is the most used, regardless of disease characteristics or medication. The amount of evidence on early UC is lower and more recent. Regarding early disease pathogenesis, most theories emphasize the prominent role of innate immunity, followed by early-Th1 adaptive response.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of early CD seems to be crucial for the management of CD patients, impacting short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes. On the other hand, the early treatment of UC appears to be less advantageous, yet evidence comes from only a few retrospective studies.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Practice for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To outline the development, rationale, and practical use of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Therapeutic drug monitoring is traditionally discussed in terms of a proactive or reactive approach. However, these terms are not always consistently defined and can be confusing when translating research to clinical practice. Personalized approaches incorporating clinical context and precision medicine are emerging. Personalized therapeutic drug monitoring combines a structured and proactive strategy for monitoring biologic concentrations as well as identification of antidrug antibody development or subtherapeutic dosing in the setting of loss of response. Optimizing biologic therapy can improve outcomes and avoid loss of response. Why, when, and how we measure drug troughs and anti-drug antibodies is a moving target, though what is known is that the appropriate and evidence-based use of this practice prevents adverse events and improves outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Influence of Corticosteroid Use on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Biologic Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids (CS) are widely used to treat Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), but are not recommended as maintenance therapy. Biologic drugs are widely used as an alternative to or in conjunction with CS to induce and maintain remission. This meta-analysis tested the hypothesis that CS use is associated with differential response to biologics.

METHODS

We identified published placebo-controlled clinical trials of biologic drugs approved for the treatment of CD or UC. Pooled estimates of the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence intervals were derived from random effects models for induction of response and remission and maintenance of remission comparing biologic with CS versus biologic alone. Heterogeneity of response was estimated using I².

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates of the RD and I² comparing biologic plus CS versus biologic alone were as follows: induction of UC response 0.15 (0.05, 0.25), I² = 57.29% and CD response 0.02 (- 0.03, 0.06), I² = 0.01%; induction of UC remission 0.03 (- 0.01, 0.08), I² = 0.00% and CD remission 0.08(0.02, 0.14), I² = 7.81%; and maintenance of UC remission - 0.06 (- 0.13, 0.01), I² = 0.00% and CD remission - 0.06 (- 0.14, 0.03), I² = 11.24%. Patients in the placebo arm of CD trials who were receiving CS were less likely to achieve remission during the induction phase (pooled RD - 0.05 (- 0.09, - 0.00), I² = 0.00%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, CS use was associated with higher biologic response rates for UC and remission rates for CD during the induction phase, but were not associated with improved maintenance of remission.

A Systematic Review on the interest of Drug Tolerant assay in the monitoring of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies, of which infliximab (IFX) is most commonly used. Loss of response (LOR) to anti-TNF therapy due to immunogenic failure accounts for 20% of subsequent medical intervention and is defined, using a drug sensitive assay, as low or undetectable concentration of drug with high titers of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb). We performed a systematic review to investigate the use of a drug tolerant assay during both induction and maintenance to monitor patients treated with anti-TNFs. After the search on PubMed, 90 publications were reviewed. Most ADAb detection methods are drug sensitive, cannot detect ADAb in the presence of drug, and therefore cannot be used close to drug administration, when the drug concentration is too high. To overcome this major limitation, several drug-tolerant techniques have been developed and will be discussed in this review. Using drug-tolerant assays ADAb against infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADM) can be detected during induction and predict primary non-response or LOR. Drug sensitive assays do not allow detection of ADAb during the induction phase as IFX or ADM concentration is typically high.

Updates on conventional therapies for inflammatory bowel diseases: 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and anti-TNF-α

The incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are rapidly increasing worldwide. IBDs are considered an emerging problem not only in Western countries but also in developing counties. The relapses and complications of active IBD mandate various medications. Nevertheless, hospitalization, emergency room visits, or surgery may be required, resulting in a socioeconomic burden. Great advances have been made in the development of new therapeutic options for IBD to achieve induction and maintenance remission. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still the mainstay in the treatment of IBD. This review article provides an update on recent advances in conventional therapies, including 5-aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents to treat IBD.

Shared decision-making in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

The rapid progress of research into inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has resulted in increasingly more treatment options. Different options have different advantages and disadvantages, and the preferences of patients may also differ. If patients can be invited to the formulation of medical decision-making, their compliance and satisfaction would be improved, thus possibly achieving better therapeutic results. The present review aims to summarize the current literature on shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of IBD, with the goal of promoting the application of SDM.

Comparative Acceptability of Therapeutic Maintenance Regimens in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From the Nationwide ACCEPT2 Study

BACKGROUND

Owing to growing number of therapeutic options with similar efficacy and safety, we compared the acceptability of therapeutic maintenance regimens in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

From a nationwide study (24 public or private centers), IBD patients were consecutively included for 6 weeks. A dedicated questionnaire including acceptability numerical scales (ANS) ranging from 0 to 10 (highest acceptability) was administered to both patients and related physicians.

RESULTS

Among 1850 included patients (65.9% with Crohn's disease), the ANS were 8.68 ± 2.52 for oral route (first choice in 65.8%), 7.67 ± 2.94 for subcutaneous injections (first choice in 21.4%), and 6.79 ± 3.31 for intravenous infusions (first choice in 12.8%; P < .001 for each comparison). In biologic-naïve patients (n = 315), the most accepted maintenance regimens were oral intake once (ANS = 8.8 ± 2.2) or twice (ANS = 6.9 ± 3.4) daily and subcutaneous injections every 12 or 8 weeks (ANS = 7.9 ± 3.0 and ANS = 7.2 ± 3.2, respectively). Among 342 patients with prior exposure to subcutaneous biologics, the preferred regimens were subcutaneous injections (≥2 week-intervals; ANS between 9.1 ± 2.3 and 8.1 ± 2.7) and oral intake once daily (ANS = 7.7 ± 3.2); although it was subcutaneous injections every 12 or 8 weeks (ANS = 8.4 ± 3.0 and ANS = 8.1 ± 3.0, respectively) and oral intake once daily (ANS = 7.6 ± 3.1) in case of prior exposure to intravenous biologics (n = 1181). The impact of usual therapeutic escalation or de-escalation was mild (effect size <0.5). From patients' acceptability perspective, superiority and noninferiority cutoff values should be 15% and 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although oral intake is overall preferred, acceptability is highly impacted by the rhythm of administration and prior medication exposures. However, SC treatment with long intervals between 2 injections (≥8 weeks) and oral intake once daily seems to be the most accepted modalities.

Is it time to include older adults in inflammatory bowel disease trials? A call for action

The therapeutic management of older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is challenging, particularly because of the absence of evidence-based guidelines for these patients, who seem to frequently be excluded from clinical trials. In this systematic review we investigated the exclusion of older patients with IBD from phase 3 studies registered on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, by assessing the upper limit of age exclusion criteria and the percentage of patients older than 65 years included in the trials. Exclusion criteria other than age were also recorded, and comorbidities were analysed separately. Our review of 222 phase 3 studies shows that older patients are frequently excluded from IBD clinical trials because of their age, which was used as an exclusion criterion in 129 (58%) of the 222 assessed trials. Of the 32 trials that detailed the percentage of included patients who were 65 years or older, only 763 (5·4%) patients of the 14 124 patients included were older than 65 years. In addition to age, patients were also excluded because of comorbidities (mainly renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular, and used as an exclusion criterion in 76% of trials), a history of dysplasia (45% of trials), and previous treatment for IBD (19% of trials). We propose a three-step process that should enable the inclusion of all older patients in IBD clinical trials, regardless of their age, comorbidities, and frailty.

Evidence-based efficacy of methotrexate in adult Crohn's disease in different intestinal and extraintestinal indications

INTRODUCTION

Methotrexate (MTX) is included in the therapeutic armamentarium of Crohn's disease (CD), although its positioning is currently uncertain in an era in which many effective biological drugs are available. No systematic reviews or meta-analysis have stratified the clinical outcomes of MTX according to the specific clinical scenarios of its use.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed and Scopus were used to extract eligible studies, from database inception to May 2021. A total of 163 studies were included. A systematic review was performed by stratifying the outcomes of MTX according to formulation, clinical indication and criteria of efficacy.

RESULTS

The use of MTX is supported by randomized clinical trials only in steroid-dependent CD, with similar outcomes to thiopurines. The use of MTX in patients with steroid-refractoriness, failure of thiopurines or in combination with biologics is not supported by high levels of evidence. Combination therapy with biologics can optimize the immunogenic profile of the biological drug, but the impact on long-term clinical outcomes is described only in small series with anti-TNFα. Other off-label uses, such as fistulizing disease, mucosal healing, postoperative prevention and extraintestinal manifestations, are described in small uncontrolled series. The best performance in most indications was shown by parenteral MTX, favouring higher doses (25 mg/week) in the induction phase.

DISCUSSION

Evidence from high-quality studies in favour of MTX is scarce and limited to the steroid-dependent disease, in which other drugs are the leading players today. Many limitations on study design have been found, such as the prevalence of retrospective underpowered studies and the lack of stratification of outcomes according to specific types of patients and formulations of MTX.

CONCLUSION

MTX is a valid option as steroid-sparing agent in steroid-dependent CD. Numerous other clinical scenarios require well-designed clinical studies in terms of patient profile, drug formulation and dosage, and criteria of efficacy.

Immunomodulators: still having a role?

Immunomodulators, particularly the thiopurines and to a lesser extent methotrexate, were standard of care for inflammatory bowel diseases, including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, for >40 years. While there has been a renaissance in available therapies with the advent of biologics and small molecules, an impetus remains for the ongoing use of thiopurines and methotrexate. This is particularly true for the maintenance of remission and when used in combination therapy with infliximab to suppress anti-biologic antibodies. This article summarizes the data behind immunomodulator use in Crohn’s disease, focusing on the beneficial role these drugs still have while acknowledging their clinical limitations.

Methotrexate in inflammatory bowel disease: A primer for gastroenterologists

Methotrexate is an antineoplastic agent that is also used at lower doses for anti-inflammatory properties. Along with thiopurines (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine), it has historically been an important part of pharmacological treatment for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Despite an increase in therapeutic options, these immunomodulators continue to play important roles in the management of inflammatory bowel disease, used either as a monotherapy in mild to moderate cases or in combination with monoclonal antibodies to prevent immunogenicity and maintain efficacy. In light of data linking the use of thiopurines with the risk of malignancies, methotrexate has regained attention as a potential alternative. In this article, we review data on the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of methotrexate and discuss options for the positioning of methotrexate alone, or in combination, in therapeutic algorithms for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

The efficacy of immunomodulators in the prevention and suppression of anti-drug antibodies to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

The development of biological agents against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) has revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), frequently achieving induction and maintenance of remission in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. However, a loss of response due to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is seen annually in approximately 20% of IBD patients receiving anti-TNF therapy. Current evidence suggests that the use of immunomodulators (IMM), such as thiopurines (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine) or methotrexate, may prevent or suppress ADA formation. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the available literature regarding the efficacy of IMM in the prevention and suppression of ADA development to anti-TNF therapy in patients with IBD.

Patients With IBD Receiving Methotrexate Are at Higher Risk of Liver Injury Compared With Patients With Non-IBD Diseases: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background: Methotrexate is well-known in treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (Ps), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Several reports have indicated a higher incidence of methotrexate (MTX)-related liver adverse events in patients with IBD. We aim to investigate the risk of liver injury in patients with IBD and those with non-IBD diseases treated with MTX.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles that reported liver adverse events in patients with IBD, RA, and Ps/PsA, receiving MTX therapy. Additional articles were obtained by screening the references of recent meta-analysis and reviews. Raw data from included articles were pooled to calculate the cumulative incidence of total liver injury (TLI), MTX discontinuation (MTX-D), and liver fibrosis (LF). RR (relative risk) was calculated to compare the difference between patients with IBD and those with non-IBD diseases.

Results: A total of 326 articles with 128,876 patients were included. The patients with IBD had higher incidence of TLI [11.2 vs. 9.2%; relative risk (RR) = 1.22; P = 0.224] and MTX-D (2.6 vs. 1.8%; RR, 1.48; P = 0.089) than patients with non-IBD diseases. Due to the publication bias, trim-and-fill was performed. Afterwards, the patients with IBD showed significantly higher risk of TLI (11.2 vs. 3%; RR = 3.76; p < 0.001), MTX-D (3.3 vs. 0.7%; RR = 5; p < 0.001) and LF (3.1 vs. 0.1%; RR = 38.62; P = 0.001) compared with patients with non-IBD diseases.

Conclusion: IBD is associated with a higher risk of MTX-related liver injury. The mechanism of MTX-induced hepatotoxicity might be different in IBD and non-IBD diseases, and needs to be verified in future research.

First or Second Biologic in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Combination Therapy or Monotherapy?

The therapeutic armamentarium for patients with inflammatory bowel disease has been expanding. Current guidelines make recommendations about whether patients who are biologic naive should be receiving biologic monotherapy or combination therapy, depending on the class of biologics. However, due to the limited available data, guidance to inform clinical practice for patients receiving their second or more biologic are lacking. We hereby review the available data about the use of biologic monotherapy or combination therapy with concomitant immunomodulator therapies in patients receiving their first as well as those receiving their second biologic.

Gut-liver-axis: Barrier function of liver sinusoidal endothelial cell

Liver diseases are associated with the leaky gut via the gut-liver-axis. Previous studies have paid much attention to the effect of gut barrier damage. Notably, clinical observations and basic research reveal that the gut barrier damage seldom leads to liver injury independently but aggravates pre-existing liver diseases such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and drug-induced liver injury. These evidences suggest that there is a hepatic barrier in the gut-liver-axis, protecting the liver against gut-derived pathogenic factors. However, it has never been investigated which type of liver cell plays the role of hepatic barrier. Under physiological conditions, liver sinusoidal endothelial cell (LSEC) can take up and eliminate virus, bacteriophage, microbial products, and metabolic wastes. LSEC also keeps the homeostasis of liver immune environment via tolerance-inducing and anti-inflammatory functions. In contrast, under pathological conditions, the clearance function of LSEC is impaired, and LSEC turns into a pro-inflammatory pattern. Given its anatomical position and physiological functions, LSEC is proposed as the hepatic barrier in the gut-liver-axis. In this review, we aim to further understand the role of LSEC as the hepatic barrier. Future studies are warranted to seek effective treatments to improve LSEC health, which appears to be a promising approach to prevent gut-derived liver injury.

Will the Inducing and Maintaining Remission of Non-biological Agents and Biological Agents Differ for Crohn's Disease? The Evidence From the Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Several drugs currently are available for the treatment of Crohn's disease, including non-biological agents such as anti-inflammatory agents, steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and biologic agents such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), anti-α4β7 integrin, anti-alpha-4 integrin and anti-interleukin 12/23. However, the choice of treatments for induction and maintenance is still a challenge. The relevant comparison between non-biologic agents and biologic agents is few. In our research, we aimed to help making decisions, as well as providing clinicians and patients with medication references.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials for relevant randomized controlled trials published through to July 2020 and systematic reviews published from January 2011 to December 2020. Search results were screened by 2 independent reviewers first by title and abstract and then by full text. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

Results: 54 randomized controlled trials were included in our analysis. For induction of remission, azathioprine (OR, 3.5; 95% Crl, 1.4–8.9), infliximab (OR, 4.1; 95% Crl, 1.2–16.0), infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 7.0; 95% Crl, 1.2–41.0) and infliximab+ methotrexate (OR, 7.8; 95% Crl, 1.2–65.0) were more effective in first-line therapy than placebo. Adalimumab showed superiority to placebo in second-line therapy, but the range of SD was wide. For maintenance of remission, adalimumab (OR,2.24;95% Crl,1.17–4.76) and azathioprine (OR,2.05; 95% Crl,1.14–3.96) were more effective than placebo. Adalimumab (OR,0.56; 95%Crl,0.27–1.2), budesonide (OR,0.63; 95%Crl,0.26–1.6) and natalizumab (OR,0.65; 95%Crl,0.30–1.4) was associated with less risk of withdrawals when compared with placebo.

Conclusion: For induction of remission, azathioprine, infliximab, and infliximab + azathioprine were more effective in first-line therapy. In second-line therapy, adalimumab was more effective but should be interpreted carefully. For maintenance of remission, adalimumab and azathioprine were more effective. Besides, adalimumab, budesonide, natalizumab had lower withdrawals. Therefore, biological agents were not always better than non-biological agents and they have their own advantages in different treatment methods of Crohn's disease.

Biologic monotherapy versus combination therapy with immunomodulators in the induction and maintenance of remission of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis

Despite current guidelines, the optimal treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains challenging. The available medications are not without risk and there is not a single correct treatment regimen for every patient. Personalizing treatment and selecting the most appropriate therapy is crucial for optimal response, remission, quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Biologics, especially anti-tumor necrosis factor-α medications, are widely used in the induction and maintenance of disease remission in patients with IBD. Similarly, immunomodulators, including thiopurines and methotrexate, are traditionally popular for the maintenance of remission. In this manuscript, we review the use of biologic monotherapy vs. combination therapy with immunomodulators for the treatment of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. We examine overall remission, immunogenicity and adverse effects, mainly serious infections and malignancy, in an effort to help guide treatment decisions and weigh the risks and benefits of biologic monotherapy vs. combination therapy.

Adding Thiopurine After Loss of Response to Infliximab Versus Early Combination in Treating Crohn's Disease: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Although combining thiopurine with infliximab (IFX) is considered to improve the clinical efficacy of IFX when treating Crohn's disease (CD), it also increases the risk of adverse events (AEs). We compared the efficacy and safety of delayed thiopurine addition after loss of response (LOR) to IFX with the efficacy and safety of an earlier combination of thiopurine and IFX.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed patients with CD who started IFX as a first-line biologic at Kyushu University Hospital between June 2002 and July 2018. Patients were assigned to either the early-combination (EC) group, who started IFX and thiopurine simultaneously, or the late-combination (LC) group, who were treated with IFX alone until they developed LOR. We compared the cumulative IFX continuation rates and AE incidence between the two groups.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled in this study; 49 were enrolled in the EC group, and 127 were enrolled in the LC group. Disease activity at baseline did not significantly differ between the groups, nor did the cumulative IFX continuation rates differ between the groups (P = 0.30); however, the AE rate was significantly higher in the EC group than in the LC group (38.7% vs. 21.2%; P = 0.02). The severe AE rate was also higher in the EC group than in the LC group (18.3% vs 3.1%; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Considering the risk-benefit balance, delayed addition of thiopurine after LOR to IFX might be an alternative strategy when using IFX to treat CD.

TNF-Alpha Blockers in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Practical Recommendations and a User's Guide: An Update

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) antagonists have been the mainstay in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) for over 20 years.

SUMMARY

This review article aimed to provide an update on recent advances in TNF antagonist therapy for IBDs. Key Messages: Their position in the treatment algorithm has evolved to "rapid step-up therapy" or "top-down therapy" according to disease severity and patients' characteristics. Limitations of anti-TNF antagonists include loss of response in up to 30-50% of patients with or without the development of antibodies. Therapeutic drug monitoring should provide a tailored, personalized approach to this scenario. Recently, biosimilar agents have been approved for IBDs and are considered equivalent in efficacy to the originator.

Gut-Liver Axis: Liver Sinusoidal Endothelial Cells Function as the Hepatic Barrier in Colitis-Induced Liver Injury

Background

Based on the gut–liver axis theory, a leaky gut can aggravate liver injury. However, clinical studies suggest that although gut mucosa damage is commonly observed in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it seldom leads to severe liver injury. We hypothesize that there is a hepatic barrier in the gut–liver axis, which protects the liver against gut-derived invasive factors.

Methods

Colitis was induced by dextran sulfate sodium (DSS) in eight different liver injury models in Sprague–Dawley rats. Liver sinusoidal endothelial cell (LSEC) injury was evaluated by a scanning and transmission electron microscope. Neutrophils were depleted by injection of anti-rat polymorphonuclear serum. Two pneumonia models were also induced to investigate the mechanism of neutrophil recruitment and activation. LSECs isolated from rat liver were used to investigate the effect on neutrophil recruitment and activation.

Results

Among eight liver injury models, DSS colitis had no effect on liver injury in three models with normal LSECs. In the other five models with LSEC rupture, liver injury was significantly exacerbated by colitis, and increased hepatic neutrophil accumulation was observed. When neutrophils were depleted, colitis-induced liver injury was significantly attenuated. In pneumonia, liver injury, and colitis models, the level of CXCL1 correlated with the recruitment of neutrophils in different tissues, while DSS colitis and LSEC injury synergistically contributed to increased CXCL1 expression in the liver. In colitis-induced liver injury, neutrophils were activated in the liver. Injured LSECs showed both structural and functional changes, with significantly increased expression of CXCL1 and TNF-α under the stimulation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The combination of gut-derived LPS and LSEC-derived TNF-α led to the activation of neutrophils, characterized by enhanced production of reactive oxygen species, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps.

Conclusion

LSECs constitute a vitally important barrier in the gut–liver axis, defending the liver against colitis-induced injury. When LSECs are damaged, they can turn into a pro-inflammatory pattern under the stimulation of LPS. LSEC injury and colitis-derived LPS synergistically contribute to the recruitment and activation of hepatic neutrophils. Neutrophils play a pivotal role as a downstream effector in colitis-induced liver injury.

Management Decisions in Crohn's Disease Are Changed by Knowledge of Proactive and Reactive Testing of Antitumor Necrosis Factor Drug Levels

Background

There is controversy about the proactive clinical application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biologic drugs in Crohn's disease (CD). One way to practically assess this is to examine how TDM influences management decisions. We examined how knowledge of proactive and reactive antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drug levels changes management in a variety of clinical scenarios.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, all adults with CD having trough level infliximab or adalimumab measurements at Liverpool Hospital between June 2013 and July 2016 were included. Demographics, indications for testing, anti-TNF drug levels, and treatment details were collected along with subsequent management decisions. The decision made by the treating clinician after receiving the drug level was compared to a consensus decision from a panel of 3 gastroenterologists based on the clinical, laboratory, imaging, and/or endoscopic results without the drug level. When these 2 decisions were discrepant, the anti-TNF drug level was deemed to have changed management.

Results

One hundred and eighty-seven trough levels of infliximab or adalimumab from 108 patients were analyzed. Overall, assessment of anti-TNF levels affected management in 46.9% of the instances. Knowledge of the drug level was also more likely to result in management change when the test was performed for reactive TDM compared to proactive TDM (63% vs 36%, P = .001).

Conclusions

The addition of TDM of anti-TNF agents to routine investigations alters management decisions in adult CD patients on anti-TNF therapy in both proactive and reactive settings.

Combination Therapy Does Not Improve Rate of Clinical or Endoscopic Remission in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Treated With Vedolizumab or Ustekinumab

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) often receive combination therapy with an immunomodulator and tumor necrosis factor antagonists, especially infliximab. However, the benefits of combination therapy with vedolizumab and ustekinumab are unclear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients with CD or UC initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital (USA), Alberta Health Sciences (Canada), or Nancy University Hospital (France) with at least 1 year of follow up. The primary outcome was clinical remission or response at week 14, based on the Harvey Bradshaw index for CD or simple clinical colitis index or partial Mayo score for UC. We separately examined week 30 and week 54 clinical outcomes, endoscopic response, and durability of therapy using multivariable regression models and adjusting for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

Our study included 549 patients (263 with UC, 286 with CD) receiving maintenance therapy with vedolizumab and 363 patients (4 with UC, 359 with CD) receiving maintenance therapy with ustekinumab with 1 year of follow up. The mean disease duration was 13-15 years. One-hundred thirty-one patients receiving vedolizumab (23.9%; 78 receiving thiopurine, 53 receiving methotrexate) and 120 patients receiving ustekinumab (33.1%, 57 receiving thiopurine, 63 receiving methotrexate) were receiving combination therapy. For vedolizumab, there was no difference in clinical response or remission with combination therapy vs monotherapy at week 14 (68.2% vs 74.1%; P = .22), week 30 (74.3% vs 75.6%; P = .78) or week 54 (78.3% vs 72.9%, P = .33). For ustekinumab, there was no difference in clinical response or remission with combination therapy vs monotherapy at week 14 (54.6% vs 65.8%; P = .08), week 30 (71.6% vs 77.4%; P = .33) or week 54 (62.1% vs 67.0%; P = .52). There were similar proportions of patients remaining on treatment or with endoscopic response at 1 year among patients receiving combination or monotherapy with vedolizumab or ustekinumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CD or UC initiating ustekinumab or vedolizumab therapy, combination therapy with immunomodulators did not increase rates of clinical remission or response, endoscopic remission, or persistence of therapy at 1 year.