Antitumor Necrosis Factor-α Therapy Associated with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Three Cases and a Systematic Literature Review

Spondyloarthritis with inflammatory bowel disease: the latest on biologic and targeted therapies

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) encompasses a heterogeneous group of chronic inflammatory diseases that can affect both axial and peripheral joints, tendons and entheses. Among the extra-articular manifestations, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with considerable morbidity and effects on quality of life. In everyday clinical practice, treatment of these conditions requires a close collaboration between gastroenterologists and rheumatologists to enable early detection of joint and intestinal manifestations during follow-up and to choose the most effective therapeutic regimen, implementing precision medicine for each patient's subtype of SpA and IBD. The biggest issue in this field is the dearth of drugs that are approved for both diseases, as only TNF inhibitors are currently approved for the treatment of full-spectrum SpA-IBD. Janus tyrosine kinase inhibitors are among the most promising drugs for the treatment of peripheral and axial SpA, as well as for intestinal manifestations. Other therapies such as inhibitors of IL-23 and IL-17, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, α4β7 integrin blockers and faecal microbiota transplantation seem to only be able to control some disease domains, or require further studies. Given the growing interest in the development of novel drugs to treat both conditions, it is important to understand the current state of the art and the unmet needs in the management of SpA-IBD.

Focus on Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF)-α-Related Autoimmune Diseases

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents have been increasingly used to treat patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease and dermatological and rheumatologic inflammatory disorders. However, the widening use of biologics is related to a new class of adverse events called paradoxical reactions. Its pathogenesis remains unclear, but it is suggested that cytokine remodulation in predisposed individuals can lead to the inflammatory process. Here, we dissect the clinical aspects and overall outcomes of autoimmune diseases caused by anti-TNF-α therapies.

Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor-related immune disorders

Biotechnological monoclonal antibodies and receptor antagonists capable of targeting specific inflammatory actors, such as cytokines, cytokines receptors, co-stimulatory molecules or leukocyte populations, have emerged as an alternative to conventional therapies for treating systemic inflammatory diseases with immune pathogenesis. However, there is no doubt that, with a frequency that is not exceptionally high but also not negligible, immunotherapies can favour the development of systemic and organ-specific immune-mediated disorders. It has become increasingly evident that interference with a specific immune pathway may favour the activation of opposing compensatory signalling, which may exacerbate underlying subclinical disorders or cause immune-mediated diseases completely different from the underlying disease. The 'compensatory immunological switch' has emerged primarily in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) -α inhibitors, the first biological drugs approved for treating systemic inflammatory diseases with immune pathogenesis. In this Review, we describe the clinical features and predisposing factors of the main TNF-α inhibitor-related immune disorders, organising them into subclinical serological autoimmunity, autoimmune disorders other than those for which TNF-α inhibitors are indicated, and paradoxical reactions. We also discuss the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms and precautions for use in the therapeutic management of these patients. Better understanding of the complex phenomenon of the 'compensatory immunological switch', which TNF-α inhibitors and other biological drugs might trigger, can help not only appropriately managing immune-mediated disorders, but also better interpreting the heterogeneity of the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying certain chronic inflammatory conditions that, although different from each other, are arbitrarily placed in the context of overly generic nosological entities.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Risk in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis Treated With Biologic Agents Determined Using the BSRBR-AS and a MetaAnalysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine, among patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), whether the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) varies between patients treated with biologic therapies and those treated with other therapies and, specifically, whether the risk is higher in patients treated with etanercept (ETN).

METHODS

The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) was used to determine the incidence of IBD during follow-up and to calculate the incidence rate difference (IRD) per 1000 person-years (PY), between biologic treatment and other treatment groups. We then conducted a systematic review, involving observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to perform a metaanalysis to quantify the difference in incidence of IBD between treatment groups.

RESULTS

According to the BSRBR-AS, among people with axSpA, exposure to biologic therapy was associated with an increased incidence of IBD compared to those who were not exposed to biologic therapy (IRD 11.9, 95% CI 4.3-19.6). This finding was replicated across observational studies but was not seen in placebo-controlled RCTs (IRD 2.2, 95% CI -4.1 to 8.5). Data from the BSRBR-AS do not suggest that excess incidence of IBD is associated with exposure to ETN compared to other anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies (IRD -6.5, 95% CI -21.3 to 8.5). RCTs and their extensions suggest a small-yet not statistically significant-absolute increased incidence associated with ETN of between 2.1 and 5.8 per 1000 PY compared to other anti-TNF therapies.

CONCLUSION

There was an excess risk of IBD among persons treated with biologics in observational studies. Only evidence from RCTs suggested that ETN was associated with an increased risk compared to other anti-TNF therapies, albeit with considerable uncertainty.

Development of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Treated With Biologics

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to describe the distinct features of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients and to identify risk factors for its development.

METHODS

Data from the German biologics in pediatric rheumatology registry (Biologika in der Kinderrheumatologie) collected between 2001 and 2021 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In 5009 JIA patients, 28 developed confirmed IBD before the age of 18 years: 23 (82.1%) with Crohn disease (CD), 4 (14.3%) with ulcerative colitis (UC), and 1 (3.6%) with IBD-unclassified (IBD-U). The incident rate of IBD during 20 years of observation was 0.56% (0.46% for CD, 0.08% for UC, and 0.02% for IBD-U), of whom 20.3% were HLA-B27 positive, 25% had enthesitis-related arthritis, and 14.3% psoriatic arthritis. Within 90 days before IBD diagnosis, 82.1% (n = 23) received treatment with etanercept (ETA), 39.3% (n = 11) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 17.9% (n = 5) systemic corticosteroids, 8 (28.6%) methotrexate (MTX), 14.3% (n = 4) sulfasalazine, 10.7% (n = 3) leflunomide, and 3.6% (n = 1) adalimumab and infliximab, respectively. The incidence of IBD was lower in patients treated with MTX, but higher in patients treated with ETA except if ETA was combined with MTX. Also in patients on leflunomide or sulfasalazine, the IBD incidence was higher.

CONCLUSIONS

In our JIA cohort, an increased IBD incidence is observed compared to the general population, and the ratio of CD to UC is markedly higher hinting at a distinct phenotype of IBD. Pretreatment with MTX seems to be protective. Treatment with ETA does not prevent IBD development and JIA patients treated with leflunomide and sulfasalazine may be at an increased risk for IBD development.

Seronegative spondyloarthropathy-associated inflammatory bowel disease

Seronegative spondyloarthropathy (SpA) usually starts in the third decade of life with negative rheumatoid factor, human leukocyte antigen-B27 genetic marker and clinical features of spinal and peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis and extra-articular manifestations (EAMs). Cases can be classified as ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, reactive arthritis, enteropathic arthritis, or juvenile-onset spondyloarthritis. Joint and gut inflammation is intricately linked in SpA and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with shared genetic and immunopathogenic mechanisms. IBD is a common EAM in SpA patients, while extraintestinal manifestations in IBD patients mostly affect the joints. Although individual protocols are available for the management of each disease, the standard therapeutic guidelines of SpA-associated IBD patients remain to be established. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are recommended as initial therapy of peripheral and axial SpA, whereas their use is controversial in IBD due to associated disease flares. Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs are beneficial for peripheral arthritis but ineffective for axial SpA or IBD therapy. Anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies are effective medications with indicated use in SpA and IBD, and a drug of choice for treating SpA-associated IBD. Janus kinase inhibitors, approved for treating SpA and ulcerative colitis, are promising therapeutics in SpA coexistent with ulcerative colitis. A tight collaboration between gastroenterologists and rheumatologists with mutual referral from early accurate diagnosis to appropriately prompt therapy is required in this complex clinical scenario.

Targeting IL-6 by engineered Lactococcus lactis via surface-displayed affibody

BACKGROUND

Dysregulated production of interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in the pathology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Neutralization of IL-6 in the gut by safe probiotic bacteria may help alleviate intestinal inflammation. Here, we developed Lactococcus lactis with potent and selective IL-6 binding activity by displaying IL-6-specific affibody on its surface.

RESULTS

Anti-IL-6 affibody (designated as ZIL) was expressed in fusion with lactococcal secretion peptide Usp45 and anchoring protein AcmA. A high amount of ZIL fusion protein was detected on bacterial surface, and its functionality was validated by confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. Removal of IL-6 from the surrounding medium by the engineered L. lactis was evaluated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. ZIL-displaying L. lactis sequestered recombinant human IL-6 from the solution in a concentration-dependent manner by up to 99% and showed no binding to other pro-inflammatory cytokines, thus proving to be highly specific for IL-6. The removal was equally efficient across different IL-6 concentrations (150-1200 pg/mL) that were found to be clinically relevant in IBD patients. The ability of engineered bacteria to capture IL-6 from cell culture supernatant was assessed using immunostimulated human monocytic cell lines (THP-1 and U-937) differentiated into macrophage-like cells. ZIL-displaying L. lactis reduced the content of IL-6 in the supernatants of both cell lines in a concentration-dependent manner by up to 94%. Dose response analysis showed that bacterial cell concentrations of 10⁷ and 10⁹ CFU/mL (colony forming units per mL) were required for half-maximal removal of recombinant and macrophage-derived IL-6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ability of ZIL-displaying L. lactis to bind pathological concentrations of IL-6 at common bacterial doses suggests physiological significance.

Gut inflammation induced by drugs: Can pathology help to differentiate from inflammatory bowel disease?

Drug‐induced mucosal injury (DIMI) in the gastrointestinal tract is important to recognise, partly because cessation of the culprit agent alone may result in resolution of symptoms. An ever‐growing list of medications, including newer immunotherapeutic agents and targeted therapies, can cause gastrointestinal inflammation of varying severity. However, the diagnosis of DIMI is challenging, as a single drug can induce a variety of histopathological patterns of injury including acute colitis, chronic colitis, microscopic colitis, apoptotic colopathy, and ischaemic‐type colitis. An additional consideration is the potential clinical, endoscopic and histological overlap of DIMI with gastrointestinal mucosal injury secondary to other entities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We discuss DIMI of the gastrointestinal tract with an emphasis on histological patterns that mimic IBD, histological features which may distinguish the two entities, and the diagnostic role and limitations of the pathologist.

Extraintestinal Manifestations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Concepts, Treatment, and Implications for Disease Management

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are systemic diseases that manifest not only in the gut and gastrointestinal tract, but also in the extraintestinal organs in many patients. The quality of life for patients with IBD can be substantially affected by these extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs). It is important to have knowledge of the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs in order to adapt therapeutic options to cover all aspects of IBD. EIMs can occur in up to 24% of patients with IBD before the onset of intestinal symptoms, and need to be recognized to initiate appropriate diagnostic procedures. EIMs most frequently affect joints, skin, or eyes, but can also affect other organs, such as the liver, lung, and pancreas. It is a frequent misconception that a successful therapy of the intestinal inflammation will be sufficient to treat EIMs satisfactorily in most patients with IBD. In general, peripheral arthritis, oral aphthous ulcers, episcleritis, or erythema nodosum can be associated with active intestinal inflammation and can improve on standard treatment of the intestinal inflammation. However, anterior uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis usually occur independent of disease flares. This review provides a comprehensive overview of epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment of EIMs in IBD.

Increased incidence of inflammatory bowel disease on etanercept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis regardless of concomitant methotrexate use

Objective

To describe risk factors for IBD development in a cohort of children with JIA.

Methods

JIA patients who developed IBD were identified from the international Pharmachild register. Characteristics were compared between IBD and non-IBD patients and predictors of IBD were determined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Incidence rates of IBD events on different DMARDs were calculated, and differences between therapies were expressed as relative risks (RR).

Results

Out of 8942 patients, 48 (0.54% ) developed IBD. These were more often male (47.9% vs 32.0%) and HLA-B27 positive (38.2% vs 21.0%) and older at JIA onset (median 8.94 vs 5.33 years) than patients without IBD development. They also had more often a family history of autoimmune disease (42.6% vs 24.4%) and enthesitis-related arthritis (39.6% vs 10.8%). The strongest predictors of IBD on multivariable analysis were enthesitis-related arthritis [odds ratio (OR): 3.68, 95% CI: 1.41, 9.40] and a family history of autoimmune disease (OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.12, 4.54). Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, the incidence of IBD on etanercept monotherapy (RR: 7.69, 95% CI: 1.99, 29.74), etanercept with methotrexate (RR: 5.70, 95% CI: 1.42, 22.77) and infliximab (RR: 7.61, 95% CI: 1.27, 45.57) therapy was significantly higher. Incidence on adalimumab was not significantly different (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.15, 13.89).

Conclusion

IBD in JIA was associated with enthesitis-related arthritis and a family history of autoimmune disease. An increased IBD incidence was observed for etanercept therapy regardless of concomitant methotrexate use.

Gastrointestinal Adverse Drug Reaction Profile of Etanercept: Real-world Data From Patients and Healthcare Professionals

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the nature and frequency of gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions (GI-ADRs) of etanercept (ETN) using patient-reported and healthcare professional (HCP)-registered data and compared this frequency with the GI-ADR frequency of the widely used tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor adalimumab (ADA).

METHODS

Reported GI-ADRs of ETN for rheumatic diseases were collected from the Dutch Biologic Monitor and DREAM registries. We described the clinical course of GI-ADRs and compared the frequency with ADA in both data sources using Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Out of 416 patients using ETN for inflammatory rheumatic diseases in the Dutch Biologic Monitor, 25 (6%) patients reported 36 GI-ADRs. In the DREAM registries 11 GI-ADRs were registered for 9 patients (2.3%), out of 399 patients using ETN, with an incidence of 7.1 per 1000 patient-years. Most GI-ADRs consisted of diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain. GI-ADRs led to ETN discontinuation in 1 patient (4%) and dose adjustment in 4 (16%) in the Dutch Biologic Monitor. Eight GI-ADRs (73%) led to ETN discontinuation in the DREAM registries. The frequency of GI-ADRs of ETN did not significantly differ from GI-ADRs of ADA in both data sources (Dutch Biologic Monitor: ETN 8.7% vs ADA 5.3%, P = 0.07; DREAM: ETN 2.8% vs ADA 4.7%, P = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Most GI-ADRs associated with ETN concerned gastrointestinal symptoms. These ADRs may lead to dose adjustment or ETN discontinuation. The frequency of ETN-associated GI-ADRs was comparable to the frequency of ADA-associated GI-ADRs. Knowledge about these previously unknown ADRs can facilitate early recognition and improve patient communication.

Update on therapeutic management of spondyloarthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease

Management of spondyloarthritis (SpA) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains a challenging task that requires multidisciplinary collaboration. Separate guidelines for each disease are well-established. However, the management of SpA co-occurring with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) has hardly been studied. There are few specific reports that focus on this therapeutic area. The main issue is that some therapeutic options used to treat one disease can negatively influence the other disease course. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic alternatives that would allow for the appropriate management of patients with both SpA and IBD. Key Points • Collaboration between gastroenterologists and rheumatologists is recommended to improve the management of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). • When treating SpA occurring simultaneously with IBD, it would be appropriate to give priority to the active disease. • Considering its well-proven efficacy in both conditions, anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy remains the corner stone in the treatment of these patients. • Other therapeutic options such as Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 inhibitors, and vedolizumab are still under investigation.

Management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and spondyloarthritis

INTRODUCTION

More than half of the patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience at least one extra-intestinal manifestation (EIM). The most common EIM in patients with IBD is spondyloarthritis (SpA). Microscopic intestinal inflammation is documented in almost 50% of the patients with SpA. Areas covered: We give an overview of the classification, the epidemiology and the diagnosis of IBD and SpA. The treatment goals, the pharmacologic management options and the available treatment guidelines in IBD patients with SpA are discussed. Expert commentary: The coexistence of IBD and SpA generates challenges and opportunities for both the gastroenterologist and the rheumatologist. The potential of drugs with a gut-specific mode of action in the treatment of IBD-related arthritis warrants further exploration.