How to Choose the Biologic Therapy in a Bio-Naïve Patient with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Effectiveness of biologic therapies in achieving treatment targets in inflammatory bowel disease; real-world data from the Middle East (ENROLL study)

Background

Real-world data assessing the effectiveness of biologics in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the Middle East are not well-established. In our study, we evaluated the effectiveness of biologic therapies in achieving clinical and endoscopic outcomes in biologic-naïve patients with IBD.

Design

A retrospective chart review was conducted at two tertiary care gastroenterology centers using electronic medical records of patients with moderate-to-severe IBD. The study period was from October 2017 to October 2023. Patients who were on infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab for 12 months were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes were the percentage of IBD-related hospitalizations or surgeries, achieving steroid-free remission, and endoscopic remission.

Results

A total of 422 patients were included in the study, of whom 264 (62.5%) patients had Crohn's disease (CD) and 158 (39%) had ulcerative colitis (UC). In patients with CD, endoscopic remission was attained in 51 (52%) of the patients on adalimumab, 38 (53%) of the patients on infliximab, 34 (56%) of the patients on ustekinumab, and 16 (51%) of the patients on vedolizumab. In patients with UC, endoscopic remission was attained in 40 (56%) of the patients on infliximab, 26 (61%) of the patients on adalimumab, 8 (55%) of the patients on ustekinumab, and 11 (53%) of the patients on vedolizumab.

Conclusion

adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab were all effective in achieving clinical and endoscopic clinical outcomes in IBD in both UC and CD. The findings of this study suggest that the efficacy of biologics in a Middle Eastern population is similar to that in a Western population.

Switching within versus out of class following first-line TNFi failure in ulcerative colitis: real-world outcomes from a German claims data analysis

Background

Biologic agents have demonstrated efficacy in treating ulcerative colitis (UC); however, treatment failure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) is common in the real world. Data on preferential sequencing in clinical practice after failure remain limited.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate real-world outcomes of patients cycling to TNFis or switching to non-TNFi biologics following first-line failure with TNFis.

Design

Retrospective cohort study in Germany.

Methods

Adult patients with UC were identified using administrative claims data from 1 May 2014 to 30 June 2022 provided by a statutory sickness fund. Patients newly initiating first-line therapy with TNFis and then switching to another agent were identified. Patients were defined as within-class switched (WCS), if they cycled to another TNFi, or outside-class switchers (OCS), if they switched to a non-TNFi biologic [ustekinumab (UST) or vedolizumab (VDZ)] and followed from index (switch date) to death, insurance end, or study end on 30 June 2022. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups, and weighted Cox regression models were used to compare primary (time to discontinuation and second treatment switch) and secondary outcomes (corticosteroid-free drug survival).

Results

We identified 166 patients initiating TNFis and switching to a subsequent treatment (mean age: 42.9 years, 49.4% female). Following IPTW, there were 71 and 76 patients in the WCS and OCS groups, respectively. Compared to OCS, WCS were more likely to discontinue the new therapy [hazard ratio (HR), 1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-2.89, p = 0.012], and switch a second time (HR, 3.46, 95% CI, 1.89-6.36, p < 0.001). Moreover, WCS showed an increased likelihood of initiating prolonged corticosteroid therapy (HR, 1.42, 95% CI, 0.77-2.59, p = 0.260); however, the results were not significant.

Conclusion

Following first-line TNFi failure, this study suggests that real-world outcomes among patients with UC are less favorable when cycling to another TNFi, compared to switching to a non-TNFi such as UST or VDZ.

Clinical Utility of Disease Activity Indices in Predicting Short-Term Response to Biologics in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

Background: The Mayo Score [MS], endoscopic Mayo Score [eMS] and the Ulcerative Colitis Index of Severity [UCEIS] are employed in the assessment of ulcerative colitis [UC] severity. This study compared the aforementioned indices in terms of predictory value for response to remission induction treatment with anti-TNF and anti-integrin biologics. Methods: A total of 38 patients were retrospectively evaluated in the study, 23 male and 15 female, aged 18-74 years old who had undergone a total of 53 biological therapy courses with either infliximab [IFX] or vedolizumab [VDZ] at the Department of Gastroenterology of the Medical University of Łódź. The clinical and endoscopic activity of UC was assessed at the outset of biological therapy and the 14th week remission induction assessment juncture. Results: The study analyzed 19 IFX and 34 VDZ treatment courses. The response rate of patients receiving IFX reached 73.67% and the response rate was 58.82% for VDZ. The mean MS, eMS and UCEIS improved among all patient groups: 8.316 ± 1.974 to 4.158 ± 2.218 (p < 0.05), 2.632 ± 0.597 to 1.790 ± 0.713 (p < 0.05) and 4.790 ± 1.745 to 3.000 ± 1.453 (p < 0.05) for IFX, 7.088 ± 2.234 to 3.618 ± 2.412 (p < 0.05), 2.706 ± 0.524 to 1.677 ± 1.065 (p < 0.05) and 4.235 ± 1.350 to 2.735 ± 1.880 (p < 0.05) for VDZ. Conclusions: The outcome assessment in induction treatment of UC includes clinical data and endoscopic evaluation. Severity of inflammatory lesion activity according to the eMS and UCEIS indices correlates with the overall disease presentation as evaluated with MS. The UCEIS provides an overall better predictor for biological induction treatment when compared with the eMS in both patient groups, particularly in those receiving VDZ. It provides a promising alternative to the eMS and can be employed for both initial disease severity assessment as well as for treatment response monitoring.

Efficacy and Safety of Infliximab Versus Adalimumab in Adult Subjects With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disorder affecting the colon, and typically, during the disease course, the condition may exacerbate, relapse, and remit. One of the most successful lines for inducing and maintaining clinical remission in subjects with UC is biological therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents, including adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX). This meta-analysis is an attempt to obtain complementary information driven by real-world experience (RWE) concerning the efficacy and safety of two of the most popular anti-TNFs in treating UC. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RWE studies comparing ADA and IFX as naïve anti-TNF agents for the treatment of subjects with UC. Studies were obtained by searching Scopus, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and the PubMed Central databases. Patients treated with IFX showed significantly higher induction responses. No statistically significant difference was found in the comparison of response in the maintenance treatment period. Higher overall adverse events were related to IFX treatment, with serious adverse events that were nonsignificantly higher in the ADA-treated group. In conclusion, IFX demonstrated significantly higher induction responses compared to ADA in patients with moderate-to-severe UC. IFX was associated with higher overall adverse events, whereas serious adverse events were non-significantly higher in the ADA-treated group. IFX may be favored as a first-line agent for its induction efficacy, and the choice between IFX and ADA should be individualized based on comprehensive clinical evaluation.

Trends in Targeted Therapy Usage in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TRENDY Study of ENEIDA

Markers that allow for the selection of tailored treatments for individual patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are yet to be identified. Our aim was to describe trends in real-life treatment usage. For this purpose, patients from the ENEIDA registry who received their first targeted IBD treatment (biologics or tofacitinib) between 2015 and 2021 were included. A subsequent analysis with Machine Learning models was performed. The study included 10,009 patients [71% with Crohn's disease (CD) and 29% with ulcerative colitis (UC)]. In CD, anti-TNF (predominantly adalimumab) were the main agents in the 1st line of treatment (LoT), although their use declined over time. In UC, anti-TNF (mainly infliximab) use was predominant in 1st LoT, remaining stable over time. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the most prescribed drugs in 2nd and 3rd LoT in CD and UC, respectively. Overall, the use of biosimilars increased over time. Machine Learning failed to identify a model capable of predicting treatment patterns. In conclusion, drug positioning is different in CD and UC. Anti-TNF were the most used drugs in IBD 1st LoT, being adalimumab predominant in CD and infliximab in UC. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab have gained importance in CD and UC, respectively. The approval of biosimilars had a significant impact on treatment.

Immunogenicity and Loss of Effectiveness of Biologic Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Due to Anti-Drug Antibody Development

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience a loss of effectiveness to biologic therapy (i.e., anti-TNF therapy, etc.). Therefore, in addition to the adverse effects of the treatment, these patients also face failure to achieve and maintain remission. Immunogenicity, the process of production of antibodies to biological agents, is fundamental to the evolution of loss of response to treatment in IBD patients. The presence of these antibodies in patients is linked to decreased serum drug levels and inhibited biological activity. However, immunogenicity rates exhibit significant variability across inflammatory disease states, immunoassay formats, and time periods. In this review, we aimed to elucidate the immunogenicity and immune mechanisms of antibody formation to biologics, the loss of therapy response, clinical results of biological treatment for IBD from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as to summarize the most recent strategies for overcoming immunogenicity and approaches for managing treatment failure in IBD.

Treat to target in Crohn's disease: A practical guide for clinicians

A treat-to-target (T2T) approach applies the principles of early intervention and tight disease control to optimise long-term outcomes in Crohn's disease. The Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE)-II guidelines specify short, intermediate, and long-term treatment goals, documenting specific treatment targets to be achieved at each of these timepoints. Scheduled appraisal of Crohn's disease activity against pre-defined treatment targets at these timepoints remains central to determining whether current therapy should be continued or modified. Consensus treatment targets in Crohn's disease comprise combination clinical and patient-reported outcome remission, in conjunction with biomarker normalisation and endoscopic healing. Although the STRIDE-II guidelines endorse the pursuit of endoscopic healing, clinicians must consider that this may not always be appropriate, acceptable, or achievable in all patients. This underscores the need to engage patients at the outset in an effort to personalise care and individualise treatment targets. The use of non-invasive biomarkers such as faecal calprotectin in conjunction with cross-sectional imaging techniques, particularly intestinal ultrasound, holds great promise; as do emerging treatment targets such as transmural healing. Two randomised clinical trials, namely, CALM and STARDUST, have evaluated the efficacy of a T2T approach in achieving endoscopic endpoints in patients with Crohn's disease. Findings from these studies reflect that patient subgroups and Crohn's disease characteristics likely to benefit most from a T2T approach, remain to be clarified. Moreover, outside of clinical trials, data pertaining to the real-world effectiveness of a T2T approach remains scare, highlighting the need for pragmatic real-world studies. Despite the obvious promise of a T2T approach, a lack of guidance to support its integration into real-world clinical practice has the potential to limit its uptake. This highlights the need to describe strategies, processes, and models of care capable of supporting the integration and execution of a T2T approach in real-world clinical practice. Hence, this review seeks to examine the current and emerging literature to provide clinicians with practical guidance on how to incorporate the principles of T2T into routine clinical practice for the management of Crohn's disease.

Risk of Nephrolithiasis in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Receiving Biologic Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. Biologic drugs target specific molecules in the body's immune system to control inflammation. Recent studies have suggested a potential link between their use and an increased risk of nephrolithiasis. We conducted a study to further investigate this association.

METHODS

The study used multiple logistic regression analysis to assess the association between the use of biologic drugs and nephrolithiasis. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SAS 9.4 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 22,895 cases, among which 5603 (24.51%) were receiving at least one biologic drug. The biologic drugs received were as follows: Adalimumab 2437 (10.66%), Infliximab 1996 (8.73%), Vedolizumab 1397 (6.11%), Ustekinumab 1304 (5.70%); Tofacitinib, 308 (1.35%); Certolizumab, 248 (1.08%); and Golimumab, 121 (0.53%). There were 1780 (7.74%) patients with Nephrolithiasis: 438 (8.0%) patients were receiving biologic treatment. We found that the use of Vedolizumab (OR = 1.307, 95% CI 1.076-1.588, p = 0.0071) increased the odds of Nephrolithiasis by 31%.

CONCLUSION

Vedolizumab use was associated with an increased risk of nephrolithiasis. The use of two or more biologic drugs also increased the risk compared to no biologic treatment.

Prioritization in inflammatory bowel disease therapy

INTRODUCTION

Most guidelines for IBD still recommend step-by-step therapy with initially classic drugs such aminosalicylates (in ulcerative colitis) or steroids but avoid prioritizing certain biological drugs and JAK inhibitors in the complicated course. This review provides an aid to pending therapy decisions.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we analyze the evidence for Crohn's disease as well as ulcerative colitis in order to optimize and 'personalize' the choice of therapy, especially in difficult cases. The relevant publications in Pubmed were identified in a continuous literature review with the key words 'Crohn´s disease' and 'ulcerative colitis.'

EXPERT OPINION

Based on this complex data set following standard therapies steroid-refractory Crohn´s disease should preferentially be treated with combined infliximab plus azathioprine or risankizumab, in second line after their failure with ustekinumab or 7adalimumab. In steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis infliximab plus azathioprine or upadacitinib should be preferred in first line, filgotinib, tofacitinib or ustekinumab in second line. A steroid-dependent course in both diseases requires azathioprine or vedolizumab, in second line infliximab or Janus kinase inhibitors. The conclusions drawn from these complex data may be helpful for individual decision making in daily clinical practice.

Intestinal complications in patients with Crohn’s disease in the Brazilian public healthcare system between 2011 and 2020

BACKGROUND

This is a secondary database study using the Brazilian public healthcare system database.

AIM

To describe intestinal complications (ICs) of patients in the Brazilian public healthcare system with Crohn’s disease (CD) who initiated and either only received conventional therapy (CVT) or also initiated anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy between 2011 and 2020.

METHODS

This study included patients with CD [international classification of diseases – 10^th revision (ICD-10): K50.0, K50.1, or K50.8] (age: ≥ 18 years) with at least one claim of CVT (sulfasalazine, azathioprine, mesalazine, or methotrexate). IC was defined as a CD-related hospitalization, pre-defined procedure codes (from rectum or intestinal surgery groups), and/or associated disease (pre-defined ICD-10 codes), and overall (one or more type of ICs).

RESULTS

In the 16809 patients with CD that met the inclusion criteria, the mean follow-up duration was 4.44 (2.37) years. In total, 14697 claims of ICs were found from 4633 patients. Over the 1- and 5-year of follow-up, 8.3% and 8.2% of the patients with CD, respectively, presented at least one IC, of which fistula (31%) and fistulotomy (48%) were the most commonly reported. The overall incidence rate (95%CI) of ICs was 6.8 (6.5–7.04) per 100 patient years for patients using only-CVT, and 9.2 (8.8–9.6) for patients with evidence of anti-TNF therapy.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes highlighted an important and constant rate of ICs over time in all the CD populations assessed, especially in patients exposed to anti-TNF therapy. This outcome revealed insights into the real-world treatment and complications relevant to patients with CD and highlights that this disease remains a concern that may require additional treatment strategies in the Brazilian public healthcare system.

Personalizing therapy selection in inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a complex disease, caused by aberrant immune responses to environmental stimuli where genetic, metabolomic, and environmental variables interact to cause mucosal inflammation. This review sheds light on the different drug and patient related factors that affect personalization of biologics in IBD treatment.

AREAS COVERED

We utilized the online research database PubMed to carry out literature search pertaining to therapies in IBD. We incorporated a combination of primary literature as well as review articles and meta-analyses in writing this clinical review. In this paper, we discuss the mechanisms of action for different biologics, the genotype and phenotype of patients, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of drugs, as factors that influence response rates. We also touch upon the role of artificial intelligence in treatment personalization.

EXPERT OPINION

The future of IBD therapeutics is one of precision medicine, based on the identification of aberrant signaling pathways unique to individual patients as well as exploring the exposome, diet, viruses, and epithelial cell dysfunction as part of disease pathogenesis. We need global cooperation for pragmatic study designs as well as equitable access to machine learning/artificial intelligence technology to reach the unfulfilled potential of IBD care.

Predictors of Anti-TNF Therapy Failure among Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Single-Center Study

Background: The advent of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has revolutionized the management of many immune-mediated diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Infliximab and adalimumab were the first mAbs approved for the management of IBD, and are still commonly prescribed for the treatment of both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Although mAbs have demonstrated high effectiveness rates in the management of IBD, some patients fail to respond adequately to mAbs, resulting in disease progression and the flare-up of symptoms. Objective: The objective was to explore the predictors of treatment failure among IBD patients on infliximab (INF) and adalimumab (ADA)—as demonstrated via colonoscopy with a simple endoscopic score (SES–CD) of ≥1 for CD and a Mayo score of ≥2 for UC—and compare the rates of treatment failure among patients on those two mAbs. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study among IBD patients aged 18 years and above who had not had any exposure to mAbs before. Those patients were followed after the initiation of biologic treatment with either INF or ADA until they were switched to another treatment due to failure of these mAbs in preventing the disease progression. Univariate and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to examine the predictors and rates of treatment failure. Results: A total of 146 IBD patients (118 patients on INF and 28 on ADA) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients was 31 years, and most of them were males (59%) with CD (75%). About 27% and 26% of the patients had penetrating and non-stricturing–non-penetrating CD behavior, respectively. Patients with UC had significantly higher odds of treatment failure compared to their counterparts with CD (OR = 2.58, 95% CI [1.06–6.26], p = 0.035). Those with left-sided disease had significantly higher odds of treatment failure (OR = 4.28, 95% CI [1.42–12.81], p = 0.0094). Patients on ADA had higher odds of treatment failure in comparison to those on INF (OR = 26.91, 95% CI [7.75–93.39], p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Infliximab was shown to be more effective in the management of IBD, with lower incidence rates of treatment failure in comparison to adalimumab.

Special Issue "Clinical Advances in Chronic Intestinal Diseases Treatment"

During the last decades, the management of patients with chronic intestinal diseases has experienced remarkable progress from both diagnostic and therapeutic point of view [...].