Combining biological therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a Finnish multi-centre study

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.

Combination biologic therapy in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: Safety and efficacy over a minimum 12-month follow-up period

OBJECTIVES

The severe course of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) refractory to advanced therapies in children results in the search for new therapeutic methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dual therapy with biologics in a cohort of children with IBD.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data from 29 children with a diagnosis of IBD, 19 with ulcerative colitis (66%), 10 with Crohn's disease (CD) (34%) qualified for dual biological therapy (DBT). The median age of patients was five (interquartile range [IQR], 1-15) years at diagnosis of IBD and 14 (IQR, 3-17) years at eligibility for dual therapy. Thirteen (45%) patients were treated with vedolizumab/adalimumab (VDZ + ADA), 13 (45%) with ustekinumab/adalimumab (UST + ADA), three (10%) with infliximab/vedolizumab (IFX + VDZ).

RESULTS

Clinical remission was achieved in 13 (45%; seven UC and six CD) and 12 (41%; seven UC and five CD) Pediatric Weighted Crohn's Disease Activity Index (wPCDAI)/Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) patients after 4 and 12 months at the initiation of dual therapy. Clinical response based on wPCDAI/PUCAI was reported in 16 (55%; nine UC and seven CD) and 12 (41% seven UC and five CD) children after 4 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. The median fecal calprotectin decreased significantly from 1240 µg/g (53-10,100) to 160 µg/g (5-2500; p = 0.004) between baseline and Month 4 and from 749 at baseline (57-10,100) to 17 (5-3110; p = 0.12) over 12 months. Moreover, 34% (six UC and four CD) of patients achieved endoscopic remission.

CONCLUSIONS

DBT seems to be an effective alternative therapeutic option for patients with moderate and severe IBD.

Dual Biologic or Small Molecule Therapy in Refractory Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease (DOUBLE-PIBD): A Multicenter Study from the Pediatric IBD Porto Group of ESPGHAN

BACKGROUND

Current data on dual biologic therapy in children are limited. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dual therapy in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

A retrospective study from 14 centers affiliated with the Pediatric IBD Interest and Porto Groups of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. Included were children with IBD who underwent combinations of biologic agents or biologic and small molecule therapy for at least 3 months. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, and imaging data were collected. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-two children (35 Crohn's disease, 27 ulcerative colitis; median age 15.5 [interquartile range, 13.1-16.8] years) were included. They had all failed previous biologic therapies, and 47 (76%) failed at least 2 biologic agents. The dual therapy included an anti-tumor necrosis factor agent and vedolizumab in 30 children (48%), anti-tumor necrosis factor and ustekinumab in 21 (34%) children, vedolizumab and ustekinumab in 8 (13%) children, and tofacitinib with a biologic in 3 (5%) children. Clinical remission was observed in 21 (35%), 30 (50%), and 38 (63%) children at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Normalization of C-reactive protein and decrease in fecal calprotectin to <250 µg/g were achieved in 75% and 64%, respectively, at 12 months of follow-up. Twenty-nine (47%) children sustained adverse events, 8 of which were regarded as serious and led to discontinuation of therapy in 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual biologic therapy may be effective in children with refractory IBD. The potential efficacy should be weighed against the risk of serious adverse events.

Dual targeted therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis: a real-world multicenter experience from Spain

Dual targeted therapy (DTT) has emerged as a promising approach in patients with refractory spondyloarthritis (SpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations of both diseases, but its effectiveness/safety ratio still remains unclear. This is a retrospective, real-world multicenter study in refractory SpA and PsA patients with simultaneous use of two biological or synthetic targeted agents. Effectiveness was assessed using Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) and Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) Score. We identified 39 different DTT combinations in 36 patients (22 SpA; 14 PsA), 25 of them with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease. The most commonly used combinations were TNF inhibitor plus antagonist of the IL12/23 pathway, followed by TNF inhibitor plus IL-17 antagonist. During a median exposure of 14.86 months (IQR 8-20.2), DTT retention rate was 69.4% (n=25/36; 19 SpA, 6 PsA). Major clinical improvement (change in ASDAS-CRP > 2 or improvement > 85% in DAPSA) was achieved in 69.4% of patients (n=25/36 therapeutical combinations; 17/21 SpA, 8/15 PsA), with a 58.3% (n=21/36 combinations; 15/20 SpA, 6/13 PsA) low-activity/remission rate. Of the patients who were receiving glucocorticoids, 55% managed to withdraw them during follow-up. Interestingly, only four serious adverse events in three patients were observed, leading to DTT discontinuation.

Review of Dual Biologics in Specialty Pharmacy Practice

OBJECTIVE

To describe and review the published evidence on use of multiple biologics within specialty pharmacy practice.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed and Embase was conducted from October 2021 through September 2022. Keywords included biologics for immune-mediated conditions along with the terms "dual," "add-on," and "combination."

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All human studies in the English language were considered. Published abstracts, case reports, case series, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although evidence is limited, there are published meta-analyses of combined biologic use within gastroenterology and rheumatology. There are also numerous case reports within dermatology. Clinical trials of dual biologics for severe rheumatologic conditions and inflammatory bowel disease are in progress. Existing evidence for use in pulmonology and allergy suggest dual biologic therapy can be safe and effective, but data are limited. Literature describing use of monoclonal antibodies for other overlapping conditions is lacking.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This article reviews the evidence describing combination biologic use and outlines remaining knowledge gaps. It also describes the essential role that specialty pharmacists play in managing therapeutic mAbs.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence describing combination biologic use is limited and long-term safety data are lacking. Pharmacists should utilize their specialized training to assess appropriateness of therapy, provide patient counseling and monitor for safety and efficacy.

Treat-to-target and sequencing therapies in Crohn's disease

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition which can negatively impact a patient's quality of life. The traditional management strategy for CD has focused on symptomatic control, however, this approach fails to prevent organ damage and to change the progressive course of this disease. Thus, the field has moved towards a treat-to-target strategy that includes identifying individualized objective targets, choosing a therapy based on individual factors that include disease severity and risk, closely monitoring disease activity at predefined time points, and optimizing therapies as needed. Due to the increasing number of therapies approved for CD, this review explores the various factors which should be considered in the sequencing of treatment options together with using the treat-to-target framework to control disease activity early in its course and provide holistic patient care.