Pharmacokinetic Features and Presence of Antidrug Antibodies Associate With Response to Infliximab Induction Therapy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Immunoassay methods used in clinical studies for the detection of anti-drug antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab

We examined the assay formats used to detect anti-drug antibodies (ADA) in clinical studies of the anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) monoclonal antibodies adalimumab and infliximab in chronic inflammatory disease and their potential impact on pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes. Using findings of a recent systematic literature review of the immunogenicity of 11 biological/biosimilar agents, we conducted an ancillary qualitative review of a subset of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of the monoclonal antibodies against anti-TNF factor adalimumab and infliximab. Among studies of adalimumab and infliximab, the immunoassay method used to detect antibodies was reported in 91 of 111 (82%) and 154 of 206 (75%) adalimumab and infliximab studies, respectively. In most adalimumab and infliximab studies, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay or radioimmunoassay was used [85 of 91 (93%) and 134 of 154 (87%), respectively]. ADA incidence varied widely among assays and inflammatory diseases (adalimumab, 0-87%; infliximab, 0-79%). Pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes were only reported for ADA-positive patients in 38 of 91 (42%) and 61 of 154 (40%) adalimumab and infliximab studies, respectively. Regardless of assay format or biological used, ADA formation was associated with lower serum concentrations, reduced efficacy and elevated rates of infusion-related reactions. Consistent with previous recommendations to improve interpretation of immunogenicity data for biologicals, greater consistency in reporting of assay methods and clinical consequences of ADA formation may prove useful. Additional standardization in immunogenicity testing and reporting, application of modern, robust assays that satisfy current regulatory expectations and implementation of international standards for marketed products may help to improve our understanding of the impact of immunogenicity to biologics.

A Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Immunogenicity of Vedolizumab

Vedolizumab is a humanized anti-α₄β₇ integrin monoclonal antibody that selectively blocks trafficking of memory T cells to inflamed gut tissue by inhibiting the α₄β₇-mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1) interaction. Approved for treating patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD), vedolizumab is administered as a 300 mg intravenous infusion. Vedolizumab undergoes a rapid, saturable, non-linear, target-mediated elimination process at low concentrations and a slower, linear, non-specific elimination process at higher concentrations. At therapeutic concentrations, vedolizumab primarily undergoes linear elimination. From population pharmacokinetic modeling, the vedolizumab terminal elimination half-life (t_½β) was estimated to be 25.5 days; linear clearance (CL_L) was similar for patients with UC (0.159 L/day) and CD (0.155 L/day). Extreme low albumin concentrations and extreme high body weight values were potentially clinically important predictors of vedolizumab CL_L. Other factors, including concomitant therapy use (methotrexate, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or aminosalicylates) or prior tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) antagonist use, had no clinically relevant effects on CL_L. A positive exposure–efficacy relationship for clinical remission and clinical response was apparent for vedolizumab induction therapy in patients with UC or CD. On average, patients with higher albumin, lower fecal calprotectin (UC only), lower C-reactive protein (CD only), and no prior TNF-α antagonist use had a higher probability of remission. Off drug, 10% of patients with UC or CD were positive for anti-drug antibodies. This article provides a comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, exposure–efficacy relationships, and immunogenicity of vedolizumab.

Accelerated Clearance of Infliximab is Associated With Treatment Failure in Patients With Corticosteroid-Refractory Acute Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A significant proportion of patients with corticosteroid-refractory acute ulcerative colitis [UC] fail therapy. We aimed to assess the pharmacokinetics [PK] of infliximab [IFX] in patients with corticosteroid-refractory acute UC and determine the association between induction IFX PK and short- and long-term therapy outcome.

METHODS

A population PK model was developed using data from 51 patients with UC [n = 42] and Crohn's disease [n = 9]. A subset of patients [n = 36] with acute corticosteroid-refractory UC (median Mayo score 11 [range 8-12]; 33 of 36 hospitalized; median corticosteroid dose at study entry 50mg prednisolone equivalent IV/oral) commencing IFX were studied to assess further correlations between PK from the first induction dose and therapy outcomes. Serial induction drug levels from the 36 UC patients were collected, facilitating population-based PK analysis. IFX and antibodies-to-infliximab [ATIs] concentrations were determined using AnsrTM IFX assay [Prometheus Inc.].

RESULTS

The Week 14 clinical response and Week 54 corticosteroid-free remission rates were 78% [28/36] and 53% [19/36], respectively. The estimated effective IFX half-life [T1/2] (median [range]) and clearance (median [range]) were 8.42 [3.94-22.03] days and 0.50 [0.19-1.41] L/day respectively. Longer induction IFX T1/2 and lower clearance were associated with the Week 14 clinical response [p = 0.005] and the Week 54 corticosteroid-free remission rates [p = 0.007].

CONCLUSIONS

Accelerated IFX clearance occurs in corticosteroid-refractory acute UC and is associated with therapy failure. These data support the use of accelerated IFX induction regimens in patients with corticosteroid-refractory acute UC failing conventional dosing regimens.

Immunogenicity of Therapeutic Antibodies: Monitoring Antidrug Antibodies in a Clinical Context

One of the factors that may impact drug levels of therapeutic antibodies in patients is immunogenicity, with potential loss of efficacy. Nowadays, many immunogenicity assays are available for testing antidrug antibodies (ADA). In this article, we discuss different types of immunogenicity assays and their clinical relevance in terms of drug tolerance, relation with pharmacokinetics (PK), neutralizing antibodies, potential adverse events associated with ADA, and prediction of ADA production. Drug-tolerant assays can provide insight into the process of immunogenicity, but for clinical management, these assays do not necessarily outperform drug-sensitive assays. The usefulness of any ADA assay for clinical decision making will be larger when drug concentrations are also measured, and this is true, in particular, for drug-tolerant assays.

Increasing Infliximab Dose Based on Symptoms, Biomarkers, and Serum Drug Concentrations Does Not Increase Clinical, Endoscopic, and Corticosteroid-Free Remission in Patients With Active Luminal Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A combination of infliximab and immunomodulators is the most efficacious treatment for Crohn's disease (CD). Patients have the best outcomes when their serum concentrations of these drugs are above a determined therapeutic threshold. We performed a prospective, randomized trial to determine whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to maintain serum levels of infliximab above 3 μg/mL produced higher rates of clinical and endoscopic remission than adapting dose based only on symptoms.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial in which 122 biologic-naïve adult patients with active CD (71 female, median age 29.8 years) received induction treatment with infliximab in combination with an immunosuppressant, from July 2012 through September 2015 at 27 centers in Europe. At week 14 of treatment, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 3 infliximab maintenance groups: dose increases (2 maximum) in steps of 2.5 mg/kg based on clinical symptoms and biomarker analysis and/or serum infliximab concentrations (dose intensification strategy [DIS]1 group); dose increase from 5 to 10 mg/kg based on the same criteria (DIS2 group); dose increase to 10 mg/kg based on clinical symptoms alone (controls). Patients' CD activity index scores, levels of C-reactive protein, fecal levels of calprotectin, and serum concentrations of infliximab were determined at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, and 14 of treatment, and then every 4 weeks thereafter until week 54. The primary endpoint was sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CD activity index <150) from weeks 22 through 54 with no ulcers at week 54.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint was reached by 15 (33%) of 45 patients in the DIS1 group, 10 (27%) of 37 patients in the DIS2 group, and 16 (40%) of 40 patients in the control group (P = .50).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective randomized exploratory trial of patients with active CD, we found increasing dose of infliximab based on a combination of symptoms, biomarkers, and serum drug concentrations does not lead to corticosteroid-free clinical remission in a larger proportion of patients than increasing dose based on symptoms alone.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2011-003038-14.

Exploration of Predictive Biomarkers of Early Infliximab Response in Acute Severe Colitis: A Prospective Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of acute severe ulcerative colitis [ASUC] appear to be dependent on early intervention with the first and/or further infliximab [IFX] doses, although parameters to guide decision-making remain uncertain.

AIM

To assess whether serum/faecal IFX levels and inflammatory biomarkers early after IFX dose can predict ASUC outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective pilot study consecutively recruited inpatients with steroid-refractory ASUC, who then received 1-3 IFX rescue doses [5 mg/kg per dose] at the discretion of the treating clinician. Serum IFX, C-reactive protein [CRP], albumin and faecal calprotectin [FC] concentrations were measured daily as an inpatient, and then 7, 14, 28 and 42 days post-first IFX. Faecal IFX was measured 1 day post-IFX. The primary end point was clinical remission (partial Mayo [PM] = 0) and CRP ≤3 mg/l at 6 weeks. Secondary end points were 12-week clinical remission or colectomy during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 24 ASUC patients with a median follow-up of 28 months [range 13-44], 10 [42%] achieved remission at 6 weeks, 12 [50%] achieved 12-week remission, six [25%] had colectomy. In total, 97% received either two or three IFX doses. Post-first dose, receiver-operator curve-derived cutoffs of the area-under-curve [AUC, Days 4-7] concentrations for serum IFX, FC and PM scores each predicted the primary end point with 100% sensitivity, and predicted future colectomy with 89-94% sensitivity. In multivariate analyses, faecal IFX >1 µg/g (odds ratio [OR] 0.04 [0.2, 0.9]), PM AUCd1-3 < 20 (OR 20.2 [1.01, 404], each P < 0.05), FC AUCd1-3 < 10000 µg/ml [OR 13.6 [0.6, 294], trend only, p = 0.09) were each associated with clinical and CRP remission [6 weeks].

CONCLUSIONS

In ASUC, post-first dose IFX, early assessment of serum/faecal IFX, calprotectin and PM scores can accurately predict future remission and colectomy, and thus potentially aid in decision-making, i.e. accelerated IFX dosing or surgical planning if/when needed.

Combination Immunosuppression in IBD

Whether to use biologic treatment for inflammatory bowel disease as monotherapy or in combination with immunosuppressives has been a matter of debate in the last 2 decades. Combination therapy was not superior in any of the registration trials for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis for TNF antagonists, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab. It needs to be mentioned, though, that none of these trials were powered to detect such differences, and that many patients entered the trial after having failed conventional immunosuppressives.Postmarketing studies revealed that patients on background immunosuppression have a lower risk of immunogenicity (often resulting in infusion/injection reactions) than patients on monotherapy. In the SONIC and UC-SUCCESS trials, superiority of the combination azathioprine-infliximab was demonstrated in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, respectively. This trial design has not been used with any other biologic for IBD, so far. Meanwhile, it has also become clear that combination treatment with TNF antagonists is associated with increased toxicity, mainly infections, but also malignancy such as lymphoproliferative disease. This toxicity could perhaps be reduced by using lower doses of immunosuppressives, a strategy that has been shown to be equally potent in reducing immunogenicity. Additionally, combination treatment could be used for a limited period of time (12 months or even shorter) since most immunogenicity develops in the beginning of the biologic treatment. Patients who develop anti-drug-antibodies later on can often be rescued by reintroduction of thiopurines or methotrexate.In summary, combination treatment is certainly beneficial with infliximab, at least in the first 12 months of treatment. With other TNF antagonists, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab, the available data do not offer clear guidance. In patients without increased risk of toxicity, and certainly in those with limited treatment options, it may be wise to offer combination treatment with all biologics for the time being and at least during the initiation phase.

Prediction of Individual Serum Infliximab Concentrations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease by a Bayesian Dashboard System

Despite a robust exposure-response relationship of infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), attempts to adjust dosing to individually predicted serum concentrations of infliximab (SICs) are lacking. Compared with labor-intensive conventional software for pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling (eg, NONMEM) dashboards are easy-to-use programs incorporating complex Bayesian statistics to determine individual pharmacokinetics. We evaluated various infliximab detection assays and the number of samples needed to precisely forecast individual SICs using a Bayesian dashboard. We assessed long-term infliximab retention in patients being dosed concordantly versus discordantly with Bayesian dashboard recommendations. Three hundred eighty-two serum samples from 117 adult IBD patients on infliximab maintenance therapy were analyzed by 3 commercially available assays. Data from each assay was modeled using NONMEM and a Bayesian dashboard. PK parameter precision and residual variability were assessed. Forecast concentrations from both systems were compared with observed concentrations. Infliximab retention was assessed by prediction for dose intensification via Bayesian dashboard versus real-life practice. Forecast precision of SICs varied between detection assays. At least 3 SICs from a reliable assay are needed for an accurate forecast. The Bayesian dashboard performed similarly to NONMEM to predict SICs. Patients dosed concordantly with Bayesian dashboard recommendations had a significantly longer median drug survival than those dosed discordantly (51.5 versus 4.6 months, P < .0001). The Bayesian dashboard helps to assess the diagnostic performance of infliximab detection assays. Three, not single, SICs provide sufficient information for individualized dose adjustment when incorporated into the Bayesian dashboard. Treatment adjusted to forecasted SICs is associated with longer drug retention of infliximab.

Early drug and anti-infliximab antibody levels for prediction of primary nonresponse to infliximab therapy

BACKGROUND

Primary nonresponse, defined as lack of clinical benefit during the induction phase, occurs in up to 30% of IBD patients treated with infliximab. The mechanisms underlying primary nonresponse have not yet been clearly defined.

AIM

To evaluate the association of early (week 2 and week 6) induction infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody levels with primary nonresponse.

METHODS

A retrospective observational case-control study of inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with infliximab and followed at Sheba Medical Center between 2009 and 2016 was performed. Pre-infusion infliximab and antibodies to infliximab (ATI) levels were measured by our previously described drug-tolerant ELISA assay.

RESULTS

Thirty-five primary nonresponders have been identified and matched with 105 primary responders (1:3 ratios). Both week 2 and week 6 infliximab levels were significantly lower among primary nonresponders compared to responders (week 2, 6: median level 7.2, 2.2 μg/mL vs 13.5, 9.5 μg/mL, P = .0019, P < .0001 respectively). Antibodies to infliximab appeared more frequently (either week 2 or 6, 68% vs 28% prevalence, P = .0004) and at higher levels in nonresponders compared to responders (week 2, 6: median ATI 7.3, 10.8 μg/mL-eq vs 3.8, 4.4 μg/mL-eq, P = .005, P = .008 respectively). Moreover, week 2 infliximab levels <6.8 μg/mL (AUC = 0.68, P = .002, sensitivity 50%, specificity 86%) and antibodies to infliximab levels >4.3 μg/mL-eq (AUC = 0.78, P = .0004, sensitivity 77%, specificity 71%) were predictive of primary nonresponse. Among the other clinical and demographic variables, higher baseline ulcerative colitis clinical score, infliximab monotherapy, prior adalimumab therapy and previous Crohn's disease-related surgeries were also associated with an increased risk of primary nonresponse.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab levels below 6.8 μg/mL and antibodies to infliximab levels above 4.3 μg/mL-eq before the second infusion are associated with primary nonresponse, especially among Crohn's disease patients.

Acute severe ulcerative colitis: latest evidence and therapeutic implications

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease of the colorectum which results from a complex interplay between environmental, genetic and microbial factors. One-fifth of patients with UC will experience an acute flare requiring hospitalization. This is a medical emergency and requires prompt recognition and multidisciplinary management. In patients who fail first-line therapy after approximately 3-5 days of intravenous steroids, medical rescue therapy is indicated with either infliximab (IFX) or cyclosporine (CsA). Optimal dosing strategies for IFX are uncertain, with several retrospective studies suggesting an association between an intensified or accelerated IFX induction regimen and lower colectomy rates, although prospective studies are warranted. In patients not responding to medical rescue therapy, or in those with fulminant colitis, urgent colectomy is indicated. Longer prognosis is suboptimal, with half of patients requiring colectomy within 5 years of presentation with acute severe UC (ASUC).

Practical recommendations for the use of therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory diseases

Biopharmaceuticals directed against tumor necrosis factor-alpha, integrins, interleukins, interferons and their receptors have become key agents for the management of inflammatory diseases in the fields of gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology and neurology. However, response to these treatments is far from optimal. Therapeutic failure has been attributed in part to inadequate serum concentrations of the drug and the formation of antidrug antibodies (ADA). Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) based on drug concentrations and ADA represents a pharmacologically sound tool for guiding dosage adjustments to optimize exposure. Although becoming standard practice in tertiary care centers, the widespread accessibility and recognition of TDM is hindered by several hurdles, including a lack of education of health care providers on TDM. In this paper, the Monitoring of monoclonal Antibodies Group in Europe (MAGE) provides an introduction on the fundamental principles of the concept of TDM, aiming to educate clinicians and assist them in the process of implementing TDM of anti-inflammatory biopharmaceuticals.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring During Induction of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Defining a Therapeutic Drug Window

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, up to 30% of patients with IBD show no clinical benefit and are defined as having a primary nonresponse. Primary nonresponse to a biologic can be attributed to either pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic issues, such as those involved in secondary loss of response. Pharmacokinetic issues are linked to undetectable or subtherapeutic drug concentrations because of either an accelerated non-immune-mediated clearance or immunogenicity and the development of antidrug antibodies, whereas pharmacodynamic issues are likely related to "non-TNF driven" disease. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), defined as the evaluation of drug concentrations and antidrug antibodies, has been proven effective for optimizing anti-TNF therapy in IBD. Nevertheless, most of the data for TDM relate to patients losing response during maintenance therapy, whereas much less is known about the therapeutic drug window and use of TDM during anti-TNF induction therapy. Recent exposure-response relationship studies, though, demonstrate that high serum anti-TNF drug concentrations during and early after induction therapy are associated with favorable therapeutic outcomes in IBD. This suggests that early optimization of anti-TNF therapy may prevent some of the primary nonresponse related to pharmacokinetic issues (low drug concentrations) and lead to better short- and long-term outcomes. This review will focus on the role of TDM during the induction phase of anti-TNF therapy.

Clinical performance of an infliximab rapid quantification assay

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based algorithms can be used to guide infliximab (IFX) adjustments in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. This study aimed to explore a rapid IFX-quantification test from a clinical perspective.

METHODS

This manuscript describes a prospective cohort study involving 110 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients on the maintenance phase of IFX. IFX trough levels were quantified using a rapid quantification assay and a commonly-used reference kit.

RESULTS

Irrespective of the assay used to measure IFX, its through levels were statistically different between patients with and without endoscopic remission (Mayo endoscopic score = 0), as well as between patients stratified by their faecal calprotectin (FC) levels. Despite the fact that the two methods correlated well with each other [Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.843, p < 0.001; intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.857, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.791-0.903], there was a discernible systematic variation; values obtained with the reference kit were on average 2.62 units higher than those obtained with the rapid assay. Notwithstanding, 3 µg/ml was shown to be an acceptable cut-off to assess endoscopic status and inflammatory burden levels using both assays. The percentage of patients that had a positive outcome when the IFX concentration measured by the rapid assay ranked above 3 µg/ml was 88% both for a Mayo endoscopic score ⩽ 1 and for an FC concentration <250 µg/g.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study, we concluded that using the rapid IFX assessment system with a 3 µg/ml threshold is a reliable alternative to the time-consuming enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in patients on the maintenance phase of IFX.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of CT-P13: a comparison of four different immunoassays

BACKGROUND

The commercialization of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, has the potential to decrease health-related costs and enhance access to biological therapies. This study aimed to address the accuracy and inter-assay agreement of the CT-P13 quantification using four different assays initially developed to assess IFX.

METHODS

The four different methods, one in-house method and three commercially available kits, were used to quantify exogenously-spiked samples and the sera from 185 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on CT-P13 therapy.

RESULTS

The quantification of the spiked samples unveiled a consistent and accurate behaviour of three of the tested methods, with average percentage recoveries of 90%, 102% and 109%. Results from the clinical samples demonstrated that these three assays were also highly correlated, both concerning Spearman's rank coefficients (range 0.890-0.947) and intraclass correlation coefficients (range 0.907-0.935). There were a few systematic deviations among them, but their impact in the clinical stratification of the patients using different cut-offs was minimal, particularly when these cut-offs were in the 3-4 µg/ml range, for which the strength of agreement (as assessed by the Kappa statistics that ranged from 0.732 to 0.902) was substantial to almost perfect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that three of the tested IFX quantification methods can be used to accurately quantify CT-P13 without any adjustments.

Infliximab and adalimumab drug levels in Crohn's disease: contrasting associations with disease activity and influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Discriminative drug level thresholds for disease activity endpoints in patients with Crohn's disease. have been consistently demonstrated with infliximab, but not adalimumab.

AIMS

To identify threshold concentrations for infliximab and adalimumab in Crohn's disease according to different disease endpoints, and factors that influence drug levels.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional service evaluation of patients receiving maintenance infliximab or adalimumab for Crohn's disease. Serum drug levels were at trough for infliximab and at any time point for adalimumab. Endpoints included Harvey-Bradshaw index, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin. 6-tioguanine nucleotide (TGN) concentrations were measured in patients treated with thiopurines.

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients (96 infliximab, 95 adalimumab) were included. Differences in infliximab levels were observed for clinical (P=.081) and biochemical remission (P=.003) and faecal calprotectin normalisation (P<.0001) with corresponding thresholds identified on ROC analysis of 1.5, 3.4 and 5.7 μg/mL. Adalimumab levels were similar between active disease and remission regardless of the endpoint assessed. Modelling identified that higher infliximab dose, body mass index and colonic disease independently accounted for 31% of the variation in infliximab levels, and weekly dosing, albumin and weight accounted for 23% of variation in adalimumab levels. TGN levels did not correlate with drug levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab drug levels are associated with the depth of response/remission in patients with Crohn's disease, but no such relationship was observed for adalimumab. More data are needed to explain the variation in drug levels.

Calprotectin and the Magnitude of Antibodies to Infliximab in Clinically-stable Ulcerative Colitis Patients are More Relevant Than Infliximab Trough Levels and Pharmacokinetics for Therapeutic Escalation

Although infliximab (IFX) is an efficient therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients, a considerably high rate of therapeutic failures still occurs. This study aimed at a better understanding of IFX pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics among clinically-asymptomatic UC patients. This was a multicentric and prospective study involving 65 UC patients in the maintenance phase of IFX therapy. There were no significant differences between patients with positive and negative clinical, endoscopic and histological outcomes concerning their IFX trough levels (TLs), area under the IFX concentration vs. time curve (AUC), clearance and antibodies to infliximab (ATI) levels. However, the need to undergo therapeutic escalation later in disease development was significantly associated with higher ATI levels (2.62μg/mL vs. 1.15μg/mL, p=0.028). Moreover, and after adjusting for disease severity, the HR (hazard ratio) for therapeutic escalation was significantly decreased for patients with an ATI concentration below 3μg/mL (HR=0.119, p=0.010), and increased for patients with fecal calprotectin (FC) level above 250μg/g (HR=9.309, p=0.018). In clinically-stable UC patients, IFX pharmacokinetic features cannot predict therapeutic response on a short-term basis. However, high levels of ATIs or FC may be indicative of a future therapeutic escalation.

Outcomes After Primary Infliximab Treatment Failure in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Primary infliximab treatment failure is common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and represents a challenge to clinicians. Treatment options are limited. This study assessed the prognosis, defined as surgery-free survival, in patients with primary infliximab treatment failure as compared to patients without primary failure (initial responders). Furthermore, this study assessed the specter of medical therapies used after primary infliximab treatment failure along with treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational, cohort study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab as first-line anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment at a tertiary center. Primary infliximab treatment failure was defined as no clinical improvement during infliximab induction therapy resulting in discontinuation of infliximab therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients (Crohn's disease n = 353 and ulcerative colitis n = 207) were treated with infliximab. Among these, 81 (15%) had primary infliximab treatment failure after a median of 3 infusions (weeks 0, 2, and 6) (interquartile range 2-4). The median surgery-free survival was 196 days from first infusion. One year after primary infliximab treatment failure, the majority of patients (n = 51, 63%) had inflammatory bowel disease-related surgery (Crohn's disease n = 19, 58%; ulcerative colitis n = 32, 67%; P = 0.49). There was a markedly increased risk of surgery in patients with primary infliximab treatment failure as compared to initial responders: odds ratio 6.3 (3.8-10.6), P < 0.0001. Among 30 patients handled by medical therapies, 16 (53%) still had active disease 1 year after primary infliximab treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary infliximab treatment failure is associated with poor outcome including high risk of surgery or sustained active disease despite medical interventions.

Utilisation of anti-TNF levels in a UK tertiary IBD centre

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain how anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drug and anti-drug antibody levels testing is used in a 'real-world' setting to optimise inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected patient data.

SETTING

Tertiary IBD centre in London, UK.

PATIENTS

All patients at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals on anti-TNF who had levels measured between the start of testing in 2012 and October 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

Anti-TNF drug and anti-drug antibody levels as part of routine monitoring.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Indication for measuring levels and changes in management made as a result of the levels.

RESULTS

330 infliximab levels were carried out in 199 patients and 143 adalimumab levels were carried out in 103 patients. Levels were primarily done in those with evidence of loss of response; 37% of infliximab levels and 52% of adalimumab levels. Levels resulted in a change in management in 26% of patients in infliximab group and 25% of patients in adalimumab group; however, this was greater in those with loss of response, 62% and 61% respectively. Anti-drug antibodies were detected in 7% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our early experience has demonstrated that measuring anti-TNF drug and anti-drug antibody levels can be useful in the optimisation of IBD management. In an increasing number of patients, particularly those with evidence of loss of response, it allows early decisions to be made regarding changing therapy. It also offers the potential for significant cost-saving by preventing pointless dose escalation in the context of therapeutic levels or when high-level anti-drug antibodies are present.

New treatment strategies for ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic strategies in ulcerative colitis are evolving. A personalized and optimal use of available drugs and the integration of new drug classes are the cornerstones underpinning the new treatment paradigms. Areas covered: A structured literature search in Medline and PubMed, Cochrane meta-analyses, and abstracts of international congresses has been performed to review therapeutic approaches to ulcerative colitis. The primary therapeutic objective of therapy is to achieve clinical remission since persistence of active disease, even if mild, leads to a significant reduction in quality of life. Current treatment paradigms of ulcerative colitis are based on the use of 5-aminosalycilates, corticosteroids, thiopurines, TNF-α inhibitors and α4ß7 integrin blockers. The main determinants for drug class selection are disease extension, disease severity, and previous drug history. New drug classes that will likely become available in the foreseeable future include inhibitors of Janus kinases, modulators of sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors, SMAD-7 antisense oligonucleotides, interleukin-12/23 blockers, and fecal microbiota transplantation. Expert commentary: Increasing therapeutic options for ulcerative colitis make predictors of response highly relevant. While these are not available, judicious use of therapies, avoidance of underdosing, or persistent therapy when criteria for drug failure are met are essential.

Golimumab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis

Golimumab (GLM) is a subcutaneously administered human anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent that has been approved by the regulatory authorities for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in 2013. Areas covered: Maintained clinical remission rates up to 50% have been shown in UC patients receiving GLM, and higher GLM serum concentrations have been associated with improved clinical outcomes. Approximately 50% of UC patients do not respond to induction therapy with GLM, and up to 40% of GLM responders will lose response over time. In most patients, loss of response is associated with low serum GLM concentrations, which suggests insufficient exposure to GLM. Low GLM serum concentrations may be avoided by therapeutic drug monitoring. Expert commentary: So far, the therapeutic window for GLM has not yet been defined, but options to dose increase GLM based on therapeutic drug monitoring might result in improved clinical outcome and higher success rates.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Golimumab in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the mucosal surface in a continuous manner from the rectum through part of, or the entire, colon. Patients with severe disease and those who become refractory or intolerant to corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants, require treatment with biologic agents that target tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF). Golimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, is the latest TNF antagonist to get approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe UC. Subcutaneously administered golimumab induces and maintains clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing. Serum concentrations of golimumab are associated with response to therapy, as patients with higher drug exposure are more likely to achieve these outcomes. Since various patient and disease-related factors were shown to influence the pharmacokinetics of TNF antagonists, drug exposure may be variable over time and between patients, affecting success of therapy. A major contributing factor is immunogenicity, with development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb) and an accelerated clearance of drug as a result. Although there is a growing body of evidence to support therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for infliximab and adalimumab, two other TNF antagonists, only limited data is available for golimumab. In addition, the clinically important drug exposure thresholds are not widely known, which has limited the use of TDM for golimumab in clinical practice. This review summarizes available data regarding the use of golimumab for UC, with emphasis on the pharmacokinetics, exposure-response relationship, and the role of TDM in optimizing therapy.

The Impact of Therapeutic Antibodies on the Management of Digestive Diseases: History, Current Practice, and Future Directions

The development of therapeutic antibodies represents a revolutionary change in medical therapy for digestive diseases. Beginning with the initial studies that confirmed the pathogenicity of cytokines in inflammatory bowel disease, the development and application of therapeutic antibodies brought challenges and insights into their potential and optimal use. Infliximab was the first biological drug approved for use in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The lessons learned from infliximab include the importance of immunogenicity and the influence of pharmacokinetics on disease response and outcomes. Building on this foundation, other therapeutic antibodies achieved approval for inflammatory bowel disease and many more are in development for several digestive diseases. In this review, we reflect on the history of therapeutic antibodies and discuss current practice and future directions for the field.

A Real-life Population Pharmacokinetic Study Reveals Factors Associated with Clearance and Immunogenicity of Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Several factors influencing the pharmacokinetics of infliximab (IFX) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been identified. We studied the impact of patient, disease, and treatment characteristics on clearance and immunogenicity of IFX in a real-world patient-with-IBD cohort.

METHODS

Serum concentrations of IFX and antibodies to IFX (ATIs) were measured in patients with IBD at a single center using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and radioimmunoassay. Patient, disease, and treatment characteristics were retrospectively collected along with laboratory values. Pharmacokinetics and ATI titer were analyzed simultaneously by nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.

RESULTS

Nine hundred ninety-seven IFX concentrations and 756 ATI measurements from 332 patients with IBD (253 Crohn's disease and 79 ulcerative colitis) were included. Mean (SD) IFX dose was 5.47 ± 1.33 mg/kg. ATIs were detected in 75/332 (23%) patients; insufficient exposure below an IFX trough level of 3 μg/mL was the most predictive factor of developing ATI and resulted in a 4-fold increased risk of ATI development. ATI titer was a better predictor of IFX clearance than ATI as a dichotomous parameter. ATI titers >30 AU/mL were consistently associated with undetectable IFX concentrations. IFX clearance was affected by body weight (40-149 kg) ranging from 0.27 to 0.53 L/d, serum albumin (2-5.4 g/dL) from 0.93 to 0.24 L/d, and titers of ATIs (0-53,000 AU/mL) from 0.36 L/d to 15.93 L/d (P < 0.001). Previously biologic-treated patients exhibited a higher clearance of IFX.

CONCLUSIONS

IFX exposure below 3 μg/mL increases risk of ATIs. Identification of influential pharmacokinetics and ATI factors improves prediction of IFX levels, potentially allowing individualized dosing and cost reduction.

Suppression of anti-drug antibodies to infliximab or adalimumab with the addition of an immunomodulator in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Loss of response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is often caused by anti-drug antibody formation with neutralisation of drug effect. Addition of an immunomodulator has been suggested to reduce immunogenicity, leading to regained response.

AIM

To investigate whether addition of an immunomodulator to anti-TNF monotherapy could lead to anti-drug antibody suppression and regained clinical response in IBD patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected measurements of infliximab or adalimumab serum concentrations and anti-drug antibodies to identify anti-drug positive patients with loss response who were given an immunomodulator.

RESULTS

Anti-drug antibodies against infliximab and adalimumab were detected in 98/376 (26%) and in 61/226 (27%) patients, respectively. Immunomodulators were given to 17/159 patients. Clinical response was recaptured in 6/10 patients receiving a thiopurine and in all (7/7) patients receiving methotrexate. In 7/8 patients on infliximab, serum concentrations increased (median 2.84 μg/mL; IQR: 1.19-4.98) and in 6/9 patients on adalimumab (median 3.10 μg/mL; IQR: 1.45-4.45). This was accompanied by a decrease in anti-drug antibodies to undetectable levels (median 11 months for both anti-TNF agents). In 23 patients, no immunomodulator was added but anti-TNF interval was shortened (17/23) or dosage was increased (6/23), which resulted in a clinical response in 10/17 and 2/6 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In 77% of IBD patients with loss of response due to immunogenicity, addition of immunomodulator resulted in undetectable anti-drug antibody levels, increased serum drug concentrations and regained clinical response. This strategy should be considered in this patient population before switching to other agents.

Review article: dose optimisation of infliximab for acute severe ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Although optimal medical management of acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is ill-defined, infliximab has become a standard of care. Accumulating evidence suggests an increased rate of infliximab clearance in patients with acute severe UC and a reduced colectomy rate with an intensified infliximab induction regimen.

AIM

To assess the strength of the current evidence for the relationship between infliximab pharmacokinetics, dosing strategies and disease behaviour in patients with acute severe UC.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and conference proceedings from 2000 to 2016 for relevant articles describing the pharmacokinetics of infliximab in acute severe UC and/or infliximab dose intensification strategies in acute severe UC. Eligible articles described randomised controlled trials, and cohort, cross-sectional, and case-controlled studies.

RESULTS

Of 400 citations identified, 76 studies were eligible. Increased infliximab clearance occurs in patients with acute severe UC, and is driven by the total inflammatory burden and leakage of drug into the colonic lumen. Several cohort studies suggest that infliximab dose intensification is beneficial to at least 50% of acute severe UC patients and the results of case-controlled studies indicate that an intensified infliximab dosing regimen with 1-2 additional infusions in the first 3 weeks of treatment could reduce the early (3-month) colectomy rate by up to 80%, although these data require prospective validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled studies suggest a benefit for infliximab dose optimisation in patients with acute severe UC. A randomised controlled trial in acute severe UC patients comparing a personalised infliximab dose-optimisation strategy with conventional dosing is a research priority.

Clinical impact of immunomonitoring in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Despite improvement in outcomes, loss of response (LOR) to tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) therapies is a big concern in the management of inflammatory bowel disease. LOR is associated with flares of disease, increased hospitalisation rates, need for surgical interventions, and decline in quality of life. LOR may be multifactorial, but immunogenicity makes a significant contribution. Traditionally doses of anti-TNFα have been adjusted based on clinical response, using a standard approach. Immunomonitoring involves the measurement of anti-TNFα trough and antibody levels. It takes into account the underlying pharmacokinetics of anti-TNFα therapies. Expanding on this a treat to target approach may be used, where doses are intensified, or tailored to the individual based on the measurement of anti-TNFα trough and antibody levels. This review looks at the history, evolution, and clinical impact that immunomonitoring is having in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. It will focus on the role of immunomonitoring in helping to achieve long lasting deep remission and mucosal healing. It will explore the different options in terms of best measuring trough and antibody levels, explore possible advantages of immunomonitoring, and discuss its role in best optimising response, at induction, during the maintenance phase of treatment, as well as a role in withdrawing or switching therapy.

Post-Induction Adalimumab Concentration is Associated with Short-Term Mucosal Healing in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mucosal healing is associated with favourable therapeutic outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis [UC]. We investigated whether adalimumab concentrations during induction therapy are associated with short-term mucosal healing [STMH] in UC patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-centre study including consecutive UC patients treated with adalimumab from June 2005 to May 2014, who underwent an endoscopy both at baseline and after induction therapy [weeks 8-14] and at least one serum sample available at week 2 and/or week 4. STMH was defined as Mayo endoscopic sub-score of ≤1 with a baseline sub-score of ≥2. Adalimumab concentrations were evaluated using an in-house developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 43 patients, the majority of whom [n = 38] were prior infliximab failures; the rest showed primary non-response [PNR, n = 5]. Twelve patients [27.9%] achieved STMH. Patients with STMH had higher adalimumab concentrations at week 4 compared to those without [10.6 vs 7.4 μg/ml, p = 0.014]. A receiver operating characteristic [ROC] analysis identified an adalimumab concentration threshold at week 4 of 9.4 μg/ml (area under the ROC curve [AUROC]: 0.778) and 7.5 μg/ml [AUROC: 0.798], after excluding patients with PNR to infliximab, to be associated with STMH. Multiple logistic regression analysis, after excluding patients with PNR to infliximab, identified adalimumab concentration ≥7.5 μg/ml at week 4 (odds ratio [OR]: 15.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-185; p = 0.029) and baseline endoscopic Mayo score 3 [OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.02-0.98; p = 0.047] as factors independently associated with STMH.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, reflecting real-life clinical practice, demonstrated that post-induction adalimumab concentrations are associated with STMH, while higher baseline mucosal inflammation is related to lack of STMH in UC.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of anti-tumour necrosis factor-α agents in inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Anti-TNFα therapy has revolutionised treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, however primary non-response and secondary loss of response are a significant problem. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has recently emerged as a means of optimising use of anti-TNFα agents. Areas covered: TDM of anti-TNFα agents can guide clinical decisions during treatment failure events, prevent treatment failure events, and potentially result in significant healthcare cost saving. TDM for anti-TNFα agent involves measurement of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies, and can be performed reactively or proactively. Reactive TDM reserves testing for treatment failure events, while proactive TDM also consists of periodic TDM for patients responding to anti-TNFα therapy to allow treatment optimisation. Generation of anti-drug antibodies is recognised as one important mechanism of treatment failure and adverse events. Expert opinion: Evidence strongly supports TDM at time of treatment failure, while studies employing proactive TDM have demonstrated conflicting results. TDM can also help better select patients likely to remain in clinical remission on anti-TNFα treatment interruption. Currently TDM is used to optimise anti-TNFα treatment, but it is not used by most clinicians to prevent adverse reactions to anti-TNFα agents.

Rapid Test for Infliximab Drug Concentration Allows Immediate Dose Adaptation

OBJECTIVES

Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab improves treatment outcomes, but available assays to monitor infliximab lack speed to implement treatment algorithms immediately. Our aim is to validate a rapid, lateral flow-based assay (LFA) for quantitative determination of infliximab and to assess thresholds associated with mucosal healing in patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

Samples (n=190) from 29 anti-tumor necrosis factor naive patients with ulcerative colitis starting infliximab induction therapy between June 2010 and February 2012 were prospectively collected. All patients had a Mayo endoscopic sub-score ≥2 at baseline. Mucosal healing (MH), defined as a Mayo endoscopic sub-score ≤1, was evaluated at week 10-14. Infliximab trough concentrations (TC) were determined with a novel LFA, which was benchmarked with the RIDASCREEN infliximab Monitoring (ELISA).

RESULTS

The LFA showed an excellent agreement with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for quantification of infliximab, as observed from Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.95 and 0.95 during induction and 0.93 and 0.87 during maintenance therapy, respectively. In total, 45% of patients achieved MH. Using the LFA, week 14 TC ≥2.1 μg/ml (AUROC: 0.819, P=0.008) were associated with MH. After 2 years follow-up, 77% of patients with MH were still receiving infliximab therapy vs. 25% of patients without MH.

CONCLUSIONS

We validated a LFA for quantification of infliximab and identified TC associated with MH. With a time-to-result of 20 min, individual sample analysis and user-friendliness, the LFA outplays ELISA as a rapid, accurate tool to monitor infliximab concentrations.

Acute severe ulcerative colitis: from pathophysiology to clinical management

Ulcerative colitis is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the colon and rectum, resulting from a dysregulated immune response towards intraluminal antigens in a genetically predisposed host. The disease has a varying extent and severity. Approximately 20% of patients with ulcerative colitis experience a severe flare during the course of their disease, requiring hospitalization. Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is potentially a life-threatening condition that requires early recognition, hospitalization, correction of body fluids and electrolytes, and nutritional support if needed. Superimposed bacterial or viral infections need to be excluded and thromboprophylaxis should be started. Intravenous corticosteroids are the first-line treatment for this condition. Rescue treatment with ciclosporin or infliximab is indicated in patients who do not sufficiently respond to corticosteroids after 3-5 days, with close monitoring of the patients' symptoms, serum C-reactive protein and albumin levels. If medical therapy fails, timely colectomy should be performed to prevent critical complications. In this article, we review all relevant aspects of ASUC, from its pathophysiological background to modern management in clinical practice.

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab: a comparative study of a new point-of-care quantitative test with two established ELISA assays

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring is a powerful strategy known to improve the clinical outcomes and to optimise the healthcare resources in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. Currently, most of the methods commercially available for the quantification of infliximab (IFX) are ELISA-based, with a turnaround time of approximately 8 h, and delaying the target dosage adjustment to the following infusion.

AIM

To validate the first point-of-care IFX quantification device available in the market - the Quantum Blue Infliximab assay (Buhlmann, Schonenbuch, Switzerland) - by comparing it with two well-established methods.

METHODS

The three methods were used to assay the IFX concentration of spiked samples and of the serum of 299 inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) patients undergoing IFX therapy.

RESULTS

The point-of-care assay had an average IFX recovery of 92%, being the most precise among the tested methods. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients of the point-of-care IFX assay vs. the two ELISA-based established methods were 0.889 and 0.939. Moreover, the accuracy of the point-of-care IFX compared with each of the two reference methods was 77% and 83%, and the kappa statistics revealed a substantial agreement (0.648 and 0.738).

CONCLUSIONS

The Quantum Blue IFX assay can successfully replace the commonly used ELISA-based IFX quantification kits. This point-of-care IFX assay is able to deliver the results within 15 min makes it ideal for an immediate target concentration adjusted dosing. Moreover, it is a user-friendly desktop device that does not require specific laboratory facilities or highly specialised personnel.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Outcomes in Immune Mediated Diseases: The Missing Link

As the incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases and the number of patients treated with anti-TNF agents keep on increasing so are the phenomena of primary non response (PNR) and secondary loss of response (SLR) to these medications. Traditionally PNR and SLR have been managed empirically-that is, switching medications for PNR and increasing the anti-TNF dose for SNR. More recently an approach based on testing drug levels and antibodies to the drug (therapeutic drug monitoring) has gained increasing popularity in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases. However, while this strategy might offer an insight into the mechanisms leading to PNR/SLR it often falls short of providing a simple, reproducible method to manage these issues in clinical practice. Here, we will review the currently recommended therapeutic strategies when using therapeutic drug monitoring; the evidence for and against such approach and the current standard strategies in Rheumatology (the specialty with the largest and longest experience with anti-TNF agents). We will then discuss the possible reasons of the shortcomings of therapeutic drug monitoring and the rationale and need to move the therapeutic target to the disease burden in inflammatory bowel diseases-along with the supporting preliminary evidence. Finally, we will focus on future crucial studies that need to be done to make approaches to PNR/SLR more rigorous and at the same time user-friendly for the practicing gastroenterologist.

Use of anti-TNF drug levels to optimise patient management

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapies, such as infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab, have been proven to be effective for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. However, 10%-30% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) show no initial clinical benefit to anti-TNF therapy (primary non-response), and over 50% after an initial favourable outcome will lose response over time (secondary loss of response (SLR)). Numerous recent studies in IBD have revealed an exposure-response relationship suggesting a positive correlation between high serum anti-TNF concentrations and favourable therapeutic outcomes including clinical, biomarker and endoscopic remission, whereas antidrug antibodies have been associated with SLR and infusion reactions. Currently, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is typically performed when treatment failure occurs either for SLR, drug intolerance (potential immune-mediated reaction) or infusion reaction (reactive TDM). Nevertheless, recent data demonstrate that proactive TDM and a treat-to-target (trough) therapeutic approach may more effectively optimise anti-TNF therapy efficacy, safety and cost. However, implementing TDM in real-life clinical practice is currently limited by the diversity in study design, therapeutic outcomes and assays used, which have hindered the identification of robust clinically relevant concentration thresholds. This review will focus mainly on the pharmacodynamic properties of anti-TNF therapy and the role of TDM in guiding therapeutic decisions in IBD.

Long-Term Outcome of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis and Primary Non-response to Infliximab

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We studied the long-term outcome of patients with ulcerative colitis [UC] and primary non response [PNR] to infliximab and searched for predictors of colectomy in these patients.

METHODS

This retrospective, multi-centre study included UC patients from three European referral centres, with PNR to infliximab defined as a lack of clinical improvement after the induction therapy, leading to drug discontinuation. Relapse, for patients who continued on biologicals after PNR to infliximab, was defined as drug discontinuation for PNR, loss of response, or serious adverse event. Serum infliximab concentrations at Weeks 2 and 6 were evaluated using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] developed in house.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 99 anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-naïve patients with UC and PNR to infliximab. At the end of follow-up (median: 3.2 [interquartile range 1-6.3] years), 55 [55.6%] of these patients underwent colectomy. Multiple Cox regression analysis identified acute severe UC (hazard ratio [HR]: 24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5-231; p = 0.006], baseline C-reactive protein [CRP] > 5mg/l [HR: 11; 95% CI: 2.1-58.8; p = 0.005], baseline albumin < 40g/l [HR: 9.5; 95% CI: 1.3-71.4; p = 0.026], and infliximab concentration at Week 2 < 16.5 μg/ml [HR: 5.6; 95% CI: 1.1-27.8; p = 0.034] as independent predictors of colectomy. Regarding patients who continued on biologicals after PNR to infliximab, there was a marginally higher cumulative probability for relapse in patients switching to another anti-TNF agent compared with those swapping to vedolizumab [p logrank = 0.08].

CONCLUSIONS

About half of UC patients with PNR to infliximab will undergo colectomy. Patients with severe inflammation and low serum infliximab concetrations during the induction phase are at greatest risk.

Current approaches for optimizing the benefit of biologic therapy in ulcerative colitis

As biologic-based medication options for ulcerative colitis expand, our understanding of their optimal use in clinical practice is advancing as well. The appropriate use of combination therapy with immunomodulators can reduce the immunogenicity of biologic agents and raise serum drug levels of the biologic. A treat-to-target strategy with objective assessments of disease activity clearly defines the goals of biologic drug treatment. Mucosal healing is an evolving treatment goal and is associated with long-term remission and reduced incidence of colectomy. Furthermore, regular reassessments and therapeutic drug monitoring can allow clinicians to make evidence-based changes in therapy. Biologic drug de-escalation or re-initiation are less well developed topics, but are emerging areas of study. We review the evidence underlying these advances and a modern approach to the use of biologic therapy in ulcerative colitis.

Clinical Decision Support Tools: The Evolution of a Revolution

Dashboard systems for clinical decision support integrate data from multiple sources. These systems, the newest in a long line of dose calculators and other decision support tools, utilize Bayesian approaches to fully individualize dosing using information gathered through therapeutic drug monitoring. In the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease patients with infliximab, dashboards may reduce therapeutic failures and treatment costs. The history and future development of modern Bayesian dashboard systems is described.

The Utility of Infliximab Therapeutic Drug Monitoring among Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Concerns for Loss of Response: A Retrospective Analysis of a Real-World Experience

Background. Infliximab (IFX) therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) allows for objective decision making in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and loss of response. Questions remain about whether IFX TDM improves outcomes. Methods. Patients with IBD who had IFX TDM due to concerns for loss of response were considered for inclusion. Serum IFX trough concentration and anti-drug antibody (ADA) concentrations were measured. Patients were grouped by TDM results: group 1, low IFX/high ADA; group 2, low IFX/low ADA; group 3, therapeutic IFX. Changes in management were analyzed according to groupings; remission rates were assessed at 6 months. Results. 71 patients were included of whom 37% underwent an appropriate change in therapy. Groups 1 (67%) and 2 (83%) had high adherence compared to only 9% in group 3. At 6 months, 57% had achieved remission. More patients who underwent an appropriate change in therapy achieved remission, though this did not reach statistical significance (69% versus 49%; P = 0.098). Conclusions. A trend towards increased remission rates was associated with appropriate changes in management following TDM results. Many patients with therapeutic IFX concentrations did not undergo an appropriate change in management, potentially reflecting a lack of available out-of-class options at the time of TDM or due to uncertainty of the meaning of the reported therapeutic range.