Swapping Versus Dose Optimization in Patients Losing Response to Adalimumab With Adequate Drug Levels

Adalimumab Drug Levels at Secondary Loss of Response Do Not Predict Response to Dose-intensification in Crohn's Disease: A Retrospective, International Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

The exposure-response relationship is less established for adalimumab (ADA) compared with infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Evidence supporting therapeutic drug monitoring post dose-intensification of ADA is limited. We aimed to explore the association between ADA drug levels and Crohn's disease (CD) activity at loss of response, and at 6 and 12 months post dose-intensification.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of adult patients with CD receiving dose-intensified weekly ADA following secondary loss of response at 3 tertiary centers across 5 years. ADA trough levels were analyzed using a drug-sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at loss of response, and 6 and 12 months after dose-intensification. Rates of clinical remission, objective remission (C-reactive protein <5 mg/L, fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, or absence of inflammation at endoscopy or imaging), and ADA failure were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 131 CD patients were included, with a median disease duration of 9 (interquartile range, 4-17) years. 51% were biologic exposed prior to ADA and 50% received concomitant immunomodulators. Baseline drug levels measured at secondary loss of response did not discriminate between subsequent responders and non-responders at either 6 or 12 months post dose-intensification. However, both higher drug levels at 6 and 12 months and a higher increment from baseline were associated with improved outcomes. On receiver-operating characteristic analyses, post-escalation ADA drug levels >10.7 µg/mL (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.66; P = .013) and >10.9 µg/mL (AUROC, 0.67; P = .032) were associated with objective remission at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug levels following dose-intensification rather than at the time of secondary loss of response were associated with subsequent CD remission.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease: recent developments

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) has an important role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab and is recommended in IBD patients presenting a loss of response under anti TNF agent. But, TDM was not recommended for others biotherapies.

AREAS COVERED

Analyzing all publications about TDM and biologics in IBD patients, we reported the major results for each biotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging data suggest that TDM will probably be similarly useful forIFX SC. In contrast, there is no demonstrated clinical benefit to the use of TDM with golimumab. For vedolizumab results for the use of both reactive and proactive TDM are discordant. For ustekinumab, data supports the existence of an exposure response relationship, albeit of a lesser magnitude than with anti-TNF agents. Finally, recent data from small case series suggests that TDM could be valuable in optimizing anti-IL23 agents, particularly risankizumab, but this requires further clarification. Consistent with the new concept of 'proactive' strategy, recent data support the utility of dashboard-driven model informed precision dosing (MIDP) of anti-TNF agents, in particular infliximab. Dashboards are software systems using Bayesian population pharmacokinetic modelling to individualize recommendations for target drug levels.

What are the benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring in the optimization of adalimumab therapy? a systematic review and meta-analysis up to 2022

Aims

Persistent uncertainties exist surrounding the therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of adalimumab in clinical settings. To address these issues, we conducted a systematic review to assess the current evidence regarding the benefits of TDM for adalimumab.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases were searched from inception to October 2022. The trials regarding to the list three key questions were considered: 1) Could routine proactive TDM assist in improving outcomes in patients receiving adalimumab? 2) Could reactive TDM assist in guiding subsequent treatment strategies for patients with treatment failure to adalimumab? 3) Could TDM assist in informing dose reduction or discontinuation in patients with low disease activity or in remission treated with adalimumab? Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 9 studies was included in this review. For proactive TDM, meta-analysis indicated that proactive TDM (n = 163/257, 63.42%) showed no significant superiority over reactive TDM and/or conventional management (n = 336/606, 55.44%) in achieving and/or maintaining clinical remission by random effects model (RR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.58, I 2 = 73%). There were three studies that supporting the reactive TDM, low drug levels in the absence of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) strongly indicate the need for dose intensification, and infliximab is a feasible choice for patients with low drug levels and ADA positivity. While swapping to another class should be considered in patients with adequate drug levels. In addition, TDM can help clinicians optimize dosing schedules and prevent overtreatment in patients who have achieved low disease activity and sufficient drug concentrations, with no predictive value for successful adalimumab discontinuation.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that proactive TDM is numerically but not statistically significant superiority over reactive TDM and/or conventional management. Reactive TDM can aid in understanding treatment failure and developing subsequent therapy. For patients reaching low disease activity and remission, TDM can help successful dose reduction, while it cannot inform the successful drug discontinuation. However, existing trials are limited, and more well-designed trials are necessary to clarify the role of TDM in adalimumab treatment.

Dose Escalation Patterns of Advanced Therapies in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalation is one of the treatment approaches studied and suggested in advanced therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to identify and characterize the dosing escalation patterns of advanced therapies in CD and UC.

METHODS

Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2011 and October 2021 and limited to non-interventional studies in English language. Congress and bibliographic searches were also conducted. Articles were screened by two independent researchers. Dose escalation patterns were described and summarized considering the regional regulatory label recommendation (in North America [NA] or outside of North America [ONA]).

RESULTS

Among 3190 CD and 2116 UC articles identified in the Ovid searches, 100 CD and 54 UC studies were included in the SLR, with more studies conducted ONA. Most studies reported an initial maintenance dose pattern aligned with the lower starting dose per local regulatory label; however, several ONA studies (n = 13 out of 14) reported ustekinumab every 8 weeks as starting maintenance pattern in CD. In ONA studies, the median within-guideline escalation rates in CD and UC were 43% in ustekinumab (CD only), 33% and 32% for vedolizumab; 29% and 39% for adalimumab; and 14% and 10% for infliximab. Evidence regarding dose escalation patterns for tofacitinib, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab was limited. Some dose escalation patterns outside of label recommendations were observed including ustekinumab every 8 weeks to every 4 weeks and vedolizumab every 8 weeks to every 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation strategies are widely documented in the literature. The reported dose escalation patterns and escalation rates vary by region and by CD and UC. Most escalation patterns reported were aligned with regulatory recommendations while some reported more diverse or aggressive dose escalation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021289251.

Effectiveness and Safety Profiles of Biological Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real Life Data from an Active Pharmacovigilance Project

Post-marketing surveillance is essential to evaluate the risk/benefit profile of drugs; however, pharmacovigilance studies comparing persistence and safety of biologic therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are scant. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate persistence together with safety profiles of biologics in a cohort of patients diagnosed with Crohn's Disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) followed by the IBD unit of Messina and treated with infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), vedolizumab (VED), and ustekinumab (UST) from 2017 through 2021. Descriptive and treatment persistence analyses with predictors for discontinuation and occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were performed. A total of 675 IBD patients were enrolled. A higher persistence rate was noted for UST and ADA in the first year (83.8% and 83.1%, respectively) and for IFX in the fifth year of treatment (58.1%). GOL, VED, and UST-all used as second/third-line therapies-seemed to have a higher risk of non-persistence than IFX (in order HR: 2.19; CI 95%: 1.33-3.61, 1.45; 1.04-2.04, 2.25; 1.25-4.07) as well as switchers and those who had at least one ADR (18.1; 13.22-24.68 and 1.55; 1.20-1.99, respectively). The reported ADRs, which were generally mild-moderate, were largely known. However, real-world data should be implemented to further study undetected safety concerns, including risk of malignancy.

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.

Optimizing therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease: a focus on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is useful for optimizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, TDM in clinical practice is still restricted by long turnaround times between sampling and results and the fact that dosing of mAbs to a target drug concentration is challenging due to high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability at both a population and patient level. Overcoming these barriers may be addressed by point-of-care (POC) assays, model-informed precision dosing (MIPD), and pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the optimization of TDM of mAbs in IBD including POC testing, MIPD, and pharmacogenetics.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent advances in sampling, quantification, and support of clinical decisions include POC assays and PK dashboards, which may allow for prompt and precise application of TDM in clinical practice. Future perspectives toward a more personalized implementation of TDM could include the incorporation of pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics to identify subgroups of patients who would benefit more from proactive TDM or combination therapy such as those prone to immunogenicity and/or accelerated drug clearance. However, there are still challenges regarding the implementation of these innovative approaches, and more data from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are needed.