Clinical impact of immunomonitoring in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Risk of consecutive immunogenic failure in switchers of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the risk of immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) therapies to a subsequent anti-TNFα (either infliximab or adalimumab) is conflicting. We aimed to assess the risk of consecutive immunogenicity to anti-TNFα in a large cohort of patients.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study. Medical records of adult and pediatric IBD switchers who had pharmacokinetic data for both agents between 2014 and 2020 were retrieved. Data including age, sex, disease type, duration of therapies, and concomitant use of immunomodulators (IMMs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 164 patients were included [52% female; 88% Crohn's disease; mean age = 24.4 ± 14.6 years; 108 (66%) switched from infliximab to adalimumab and 56 (34%) vice versa]; 120 (73.1%) patients switched due to an immunogenic failure. Among patients switching therapy from infliximab to adalimumab due to an immunogenic failure immunogenicity to infliximab was significantly associated with consecutive immunogenicity to adalimumab (p = 0.026). Forthy four out of 120 patients (36.6%) with an immunogenic failure to the first anti-TNFα started an IMM with the second anti-TNFα. This combination with IMM was not associated with reduction of consecutive immunogenicity (p = 0.31), but it was associated with longer drug retention (p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that older age at second anti-TNFα, adjusted to the chronology of therapy and sex, was associated with increased immunogenicity to the second anti-TNFα.

CONCLUSION

Patients with IBD who switch from infliximab to adalimumab following an immunogenic failure are at increased risk for consecutive immunogenicity to adalimumab. IMM use after a switch prolongs drug retention.

Concomitant 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis Patients Escalated to Infliximab Is Not Beneficial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While there is recent literature to support the discontinuation of 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) upon the initiation of biologics, continuing 5-ASA after treatment failure is relatively common. We aimed to assess the impact of concomitant 5-ASA therapy on clinical outcomes in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients escalated to infliximab.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review of patients with moderate-to-severe UC started on infliximab between January 2012 and December 2017 at the University of Alberta. The primary outcome was clinical remission (partial Mayo score < 2) at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic (endoscopic Mayo < 2) and deep remission (combined clinical and endoscopic remission) as well as the need for rescue therapy, hospitalization or colectomy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios and 95% CI for the outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-one patients were followed over a period of 47 (SD = 34) months. Patients on 5-ASA had increased concomitant immunomodulator use (73.3% vs. 54.1%, p = 0.03). There was no difference in clinical remission at 6 (aOR 2.59, p = 0.07) or 12 months (aOR 0.43, p = 0.06). At 12 months, patients on concomitant 5-ASA were less likely to achieve endoscopic (aOR 0.08, p = 0.01) and deep remission (aOR 0.07, p = 0.02). Adverse outcomes such as need for rescue therapy, hospitalization, and colectomy did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that 5-ASA may be stopped in patients with moderate-to-severe UC who have been escalated to infliximab therapy as it has no additional benefit to control inflammation.

Comparison of three immunoassays for infliximab trough level monitoring in paediatric inflammatory bowel diseases

Many clinical studies in paediatric inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) use infliximab trough level (IFX-TL) and detection of antibody against infliximab (ATI). Hence, comparison of commercially available assays is needed in paediatric samples to assess their reliability and their comparability. We measured IFX-TL and ATI-TL in sera samples of 53 IBD children using three ELISA kits: Lisa-Tracker® Duo Infliximab (Theradiag®), Ridascreen® IFX monitoring (R-Biopharm®) and Promonitor® IFX (Grifols®). Regarding IFX-TL, median values were comparable (p > 0.05), a good statistical correlation has been observed (0.73 ≤ R² ≤ 0.85) between tested assays and the Bland-Altman analysis found an excellent agreement with a bias estimated between -0.56 and 0.12 and few values outside the 95% limits of agreement. However, qualitative comparison with therapeutic interval classifications showed some discrepancies (30.2%), mainly due to values near thresholds and more often than not with Theradiag® (22.6%). For ATI, because of non-standardized units, the qualitative comparison found a sensibly good agreement (98.1%). These data show a good agreement of IFX-TL and ATI measurement between three marketed ELISA assays with a small bias obtained. Variations in some results can lead to divergent therapeutic interval classifications and prompt us to be cautious in the interpretation of values near therapeutic thresholds.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Current and Investigational Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatments

This article reviews therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) use for current inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatments. IBD comprises Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis-chronic gastrointestinal inflammatory disorders. Treatment options for moderate to severe IBD include thiopurines; methotrexate; biologic agents targeting tumor necrosis factor, α4β7 integrin or interleukins 12 and 23; and Janus kinase inhibitors. TDM is recommended to guide treatment decisions for some of these agents. Published literature concerning TDM for IBD treatments was reviewed. S.D.L., R.S., and E.V.L. drew on their clinical experiences. Polymorphisms resulting in altered enzymatic activity inactivating thiopurine metabolites can lead to myelotoxicity and hepatotoxicity. Increased elimination of biologic agents can result from immunogenicity or higher disease activity, leading to low drug concentration and consequent nonresponse or loss of response. TDM may aid treatment and dose decisions for individual patients, based on monitoring metabolite levels for thiopurines, or serum drug trough concentration and antidrug antibody levels for biologic agents. Challenges remain around TDM implementation in IBD, including the lack of uniform assay methods and guidance for interpreting results. The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib is not impacted by enzyme polymorphisms or disease activity, and is not expected to stimulate the formation of neutralizing antidrug antibodies. TDM is associated with implementation challenges, despite the recommendation of its use for guiding many IBD treatments. Newer small molecules with less susceptibility to patient variability factors may fulfill the unmet need of treatment options that do not require TDM, although further study is required to confirm this.

Clinical Relevance of Anti-TNF Antibody Trough Levels and Anti-Drug Antibodies in Treating Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Background and Aims

The majority of patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy develop anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), which might result in loss of treatment efficacy. Strict guidelines on measuring trough levels (TLs) and ADA in clinical routine do not exist. To provide real-world data, we took advantage of our tertiary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) center patient cohort and determined indicators for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and actual consequences in patient care.

Methods

We retrospectively collected clinical data of 104 IBD patients treated with infliximab or adalimumab in our IBD clinic. Patients with TL and ADA measurements between June 2015 and February 2018 were included.

Results

The main reason for determining TL was increased clinical disease. Subtherapeutic TLs were found in 33 patients, therapeutic TLs in 33 patients, and supratherapeutic TLs in 38 patients. Adjustments in anti-TNF therapy occurred more frequently (p = 0.01) in patients with subtherapeutic TL (24 of 33 patients; 73%) as compared to patients with therapeutic and supratherapeutic TLs (26 of 71 patients; 37%). No correlation could be found between TL and disease activity (p = 0.16). Presence of ADA was found in 16 patients, correlated with the development of infusion reactions (OR: 10.6, RR: 5.4, CI: 2.9-38.6), and was associated with subtherapeutic TL in 15 patients (93.8%). Treatment adaptations were based on TL and/or ADA presence in 36 of 63 patients.

Conclusions

TDM showed significant treatment adaptations in patients with subtherapeutic TL. Conversely, in patients with therapeutic and supratherapeutic TLs, reasons for adaptations were based on considerations other than TL, such as clinical disease activity. Further studies should focus on decision-making in patients presenting with supratherapeutic TL in remission.

Combination Therapy of Adalimumab With an Immunomodulator Is Not More Effective Than Adalimumab Monotherapy in Children With Crohn's Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of the PAILOT Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The PAILOT trial was a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate proactive vs reactive therapeutic drug monitoring in children with Crohn's disease (CD) treated with adalimumab. Our aim in this post hoc analysis of the PAILOT trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab combination treatment in comparison with monotherapy at week 72 after adalimumab induction.

METHODS

Participants were children 6-17 years old, biologic naïve, with moderate to severe CD, who responded to adalimumab induction at week 4. Patients receiving immunomodulators at baseline maintained a stable dose until week 24; patients could then discontinue immunomodulators. At each visit, patients were assessed for disease index, serum biomarkers, fecal calprotectin, adalimumab trough concentration, and anti-adalimumab antibodies.

RESULTS

Out of the 78 patients (29% female; mean age, 14.3 ± 2.6 years), 34 patients (44%) received combination therapy. During the study period, there was no significant difference in the rates of sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission (25/34, 73%, vs 28/44, 63%; P = 0.35) or sustained composite outcome of clinical remission, C-reactive protein ≤0.5 mg/dL, and calprotectin ≤150 µg/g (10/34, 29%, vs 14/44, 32%; P = 0.77) between the combination group and the monotherapy group, respectively. Clinical and biological outcomes did not differ between the proactive and reactive subgroups within the combination and monotherapy groups. Adalimumab trough concentrations and immunogenicity were not significantly different between groups. The rate of serious adverse events was not significantly different between groups but was numerically higher in the monotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy of adalimumab and an immunomodulator was not more effective than adalimumab monotherapy in children with CD (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02256462).

Clinical efficacy of infliximab level and anti-infliximab antibody measurement in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: An audit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Infliximab (IFX) monitoring has been proposed for effective therapeutic management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is no data on infliximab levels and its antibody measurement in Indian patients. We assessed the clinical efficacy of IFX level and antibodies to infliximab (ATI) monitoring in IBD patients.

METHODS

Infliximab trough level and antibody testing was done in 50 and 30 IBD patients, respectively using commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits. The levels were correlated with the disease status, albumin, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. The clinical efficacy of level-based change in patient management was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 50 patients, IFX levels were therapeutic in 8, sub-therapeutic in 40, and supra-therapeutic in 2. High ATI titer was present in 8/30 patients. The IFX level did not correlate with the dose of 5 or 10 mg/kg. Based on IFX level and ATI estimation, management was changed in 35 patients: increase in dose in 7, decrease in dosing interval in 17, increase in interval in 2, surgery in 2, change in biologic in 5, and cessation of IFX in 2 patients. Therapy modification based on IFX level improved the clinical response in 25 patients, of whom 5 are in remission at a median duration of 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Most (80%) of the IBD patients had subtherapeutic IFX levels while high ATI titers were found in 27% of the patients. There was no correlation between infliximab dose and drug levels. Therapy modification based on drug level benefitted the majority. Our results suggest that measurement of IFX level assists in attaining therapeutic levels and improves clinical response.

Biological therapy in pediatric age

Biological therapies, especially blocking tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) agents have radically changed the therapeutic approach and disease course of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In particular, drugs such as infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) have been demonstrated to be effective in inducing and maintaining corticosteroid-free remission in both adult and pediatric patients with Crohns Disease (CD) and Ulcerative colitis (UC). Biosimilar biological (BioS) therapy is increasingly being used in pediatric age even though most knowledge on the safety and efficacy of these agents is based on IFX in adult IBD data. Studies show high rates of clinical response and remission in both IFX naïve patients and in patients switched from originator to BioS with similar risks of adverse events (AEs) as those reported with IFX originator. In the present review indications, efficacy and AEs of biological therapy in pediatric IBD will be discussed, as well as the role of other biological agents such as Golimumab, Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab, the role of BioS biological therapy and utility of therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice.

A nationwide survey on therapeutic drug monitoring of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents for inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) during treatment with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents in inflammatory bowel disease may increase treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and reduce the risk of loss of response.

AIMS

To assess the current use of anti-TNF agent TDM, including trough concentration and anti-drug antibodies, among gastroenterology practitioners in New Zealand.

METHODS

A web-based survey was delivered to gastroenterologists and advanced trainees in New Zealand, identified by the New Zealand Society of Gastroenterology.

RESULTS

The response rate was 36% (48/134). Adalimumab was the most common initial anti-TNF agent used (78%, infliximab 22%). Ninety-three percent of those who completed the survey used TDM, mainly in cases of non-response or loss or response. Most respondents (93% and 83% for adalimumab and infliximab, respectively) measured trough concentrations within 24 h prior to the next administration. In patients in clinical remission but with endoscopic inflammation on anti-TNF agents, 72% would measure drug concentrations. In the presence of anti-drug antibodies, 45% would add an immunomodulator in patients with active disease and 47% would add an immunomodulator in patients in remission. With low trough concentrations, 77% would make no changes if the patient was in remission, and 75% would increase the dose in case of active disease.

CONCLUSION

TDM was routinely used among inflammatory bowel disease gastroenterology clinicians who responded to this survey. However, interpretation of results and decision-making is variable, suggesting more guidance is required.

New steps in infliximab therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

AIMS

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab (IFX) appears to be beneficial for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the recommended target concentrations depend partly on the method used to quantify IFX. Since we recently developed a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method to quantify IFX, we aimed to determine IFX trough concentrations (Cmin) associated with biological remission.

METHODS

We retrospectively measured IFX Cmin in sera from 55 patients with IBD, on IFX maintenance therapy, and for whom demographic, biological and clinical data were collected from medical records. A threshold of IFX Cmin associated with biological remission (defined by C-reactive protein < 5 mg l-1 and faecal calprotectin <150 μg g-1 ) was determined using receiver operating characteristics analysis.

RESULTS

IFX Cmin ranged from <1 mg l-1 to 57.2 mg l-1 . IFX Cmin were higher (P = 0.038) in patients with biological remission and a cut-off of IFX Cmin set to 6.2 mg l-1 was associated with biological remission (sensitivity = 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.75; specificity = 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.83).

CONCLUSION

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry measurement of IFX Cmin and the determination of a new threshold of IFX Cmin associated with biological remission are new steps towards IFX treatment personalization in patients with IBD.