Incidence and Management of Infusion Reactions to Infliximab in an Alternate Care Setting

Outcomes for Standardized Home and Hospital-Based Infusions of Infliximab for Children With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is commonly treated with infliximab in a hospital setting. Utilization of home infusions (HI) is increasing due to insurance mandates, travel time savings, and convenience. We evaluated adverse outcomes (AOs) of infliximab infusions in children with IBD receiving HI compared to hospital-based infusions.

METHODS

Children receiving HI between September 2016 and September 2018 were retrospectively matched based on age, race, ethnicity, sex, and disease type to a cohort receiving infliximab at a hospital-based center. A survival analysis evaluated the hazard ratio for AOs in HI relative to hospital-infused children over 2 years. AOs were defined as discontinuation of therapy for clinically relevant reasons, IBD-related hospitalizations, and emergency department visits.

RESULTS

We included 102 children (51 pairs) (63% male, 91% White, 92% Crohn disease). Disease location, behavior, growth status, and disease severity were similar between the 2 cohorts. Quiescent disease increased from 3% to 93% after 2 years without cohort differences. At baseline, 94% of HI patients and 88% of controls were on 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks as standard maintenance therapy. Within 2 years, only 19% remained on 5 mg/kg and the remainder required increased dosing or decreased interval. The HI cohort had fewer labs obtained ( P < 0.001), though laboratory values, number of clinic visits, and frequency of AOs were similar.

CONCLUSION

Drug durability, AOs, and laboratory values were similar between HI and hospital-based infusions. These findings suggest HI may be as effective as hospital-based infusions, provided a standardized care approach is utilized.

Leukocytoclastic Vasculitis Secondary to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Vasculitis is an uncommon complication of biologics used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study describes a case series of vasculitis induced by anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in IBD patients.

METHODS

Retrospective assessments were performed using the medical records of adult IBD patients who underwent outpatient clinical follow-ups between January 2010 and December 2019 in order to identify patients with vasculitis caused by anti-TNF therapy.

RESULTS

There were 2442 patients altogether. Of these, 862 (35%) took anti-TNF medication. Five patients (0.6% of the overall patients; n = 3 (60%) Crohn's disease; n = 2 (40%), ulcerative colitis) were identified as having leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV) due to anti-TNF therapy; these patients were white, female, and non-smokers. The mean age of LCV diagnosis was 32.2 years, and the mean IBD duration was 7.2 years. The mean time between the start of biologic therapy and LCV onset was 30.8 months. Most of the patients were using adalimumab (80%; n = 4). All the patients were in remission at the time of the LCV diagnosis, and the vasculitis affected the skin in all cases. Anti-TNF therapy was discontinued in the five abovementioned patients, and the response of LCV to the oral steroids was significantly positive. Remarkably, all five patients experienced complete remission from LCV within 4-12 weeks after starting prednisone therapy, and none of them had LCV recurrence in the follow-up period (a mean duration of 28 months).

CONCLUSIONS

LCV is an unusual complication of anti-TNF therapy in the IBD setting. In this context, clinicians should have a high degree of suspicion of LCV in patients who develop an unexplained cutaneous rash.

Hypersensitivity to Biological Treatments in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: How Should It Be Managed?

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of the most frequent diseases in the practice of pediatric rheumatology. JIA treatments have been modified and improved with the use of biological drugs along with technological innovations. However, different types of hypersensitivity reactions to biological drugs have also been reported. Anaphylaxis and infusion reactions occurring during the intravenous infusion require a critical approach in the acute period. On the other hand, the detection of drug-related late-type reactions and the development of antibodies to the agent highlight the need for an understanding of the drug-induced etiology to prevent the patient from continuing the treatment with the culprit drug. The chronic disease process, concomitant immune dysregulation, and multiple drug use may result in these hypersensitivity reactions. In this review, the hypersensitivity reactions to the biological treatments used in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and the management of these conditions are discussed.

Same Day Infusion of Iron Therapy Is Associated With No Increased Risk for Adverse Events Among Patients Receiving Biological Infusions for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

GOALS

The goal of this study was to compare the relative safety of administering iron infusions on the same day as intravenous (IV) biological therapy to the administration of these treatments on different days in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

BACKGROUND

IV iron therapy is often required in patients with IBD. Many patients with IBD who receive IV iron therapy in the outpatient setting also receive biological infusion therapy for treatment of their IBD.

STUDY

Patients with IBD who received IV iron therapy at a single infusion center were included. We compared documented infusion-related reactions in patients with patients receiving an iron infusion on the same day as their biological infusion to those who received their iron infusion on a different day.

RESULTS

Among 481 patients, 129 received an iron infusion on the same day as a biologic infusion. There was no significant difference in the incidence of infusion reaction when comparing patients who received biological infusion therapy in the same session as the iron infusion to those patients who received a biological infusion on a different day (5% vs. 7%, P =0.246) or any IBD-related therapy (5% vs. 8%, P =0.206).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency and type of infusion reactions in patients receiving IV iron therapy on the same day after IV therapy with biologics was not increased compared with patients who received a biological infusion on a different day. A sequential infusion of biological therapy followed by IV iron therapy may be a safe and cost-effective approach.

Denials, Dilly-dallying, and Despair: Navigating the Insurance Labyrinth to Obtain Medically Necessary Medications for Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Increasingly, in the United States, the prescribing of high-cost drugs has become a challenge for physicians and other practitioners. Such drugs are highly regulated by third-party payers (aka insurance), as well as pharmacy benefit managers. Not infrequently, a clinician prescribing a medication will have the payment for the prescription denied by the third-party payer, with the end result being a delay in getting a medically necessary medication to a patient. This article highlights the challenges involved in the prior authorization and denial process, with a focus on pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. The article reviews the role of pharmacy benefits managers in restricting access to drugs, and the reasons why denials of medically necessary medications may occur. The article also provides information on how to appeal denials, how to write a letters of medical necessity, and how to conduct a proper peer-to-peer review. Advocacy from patients and clinicians will be important, as we want to reform the process in the future.

Home Infusions for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Are Safe: US Experience and Patient Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Home infusions (HIs) for biologic medications are an option for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in the United States. We aimed to describe the population receiving HIs and report patient experience with HIs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in the Quintiles-IMSLegacy PharMetrics Adjudicated Claims Database from 2010 to 2016 to describe the population receiving infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) HIs and determine predictors for an urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. We then administered a cross-sectional survey to IBD Partners Internet-based cohort participants to assess knowledge and experience with infusions.

RESULTS

We identified claims for 11 892 conventional IFX patients, 1573 home IFX patients, 438 conventional VDZ patients, and 138 home VDZ patients. There were no differences in demographics or median charges with IFX home and conventional infusions. Home VDZ infusions had a greater median charge than conventional VDZ infusion. Less than 4% of patients had an urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. Charlson comorbidity index > 0 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-3.77) and Medicaid (OR: 3.01; 95% CI, 1.53-5.94) conferred significantly higher odds of urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. In IBD Partners, 644 IBD patients responded; 56 received HIs. The majority chose HIs to save time and preferred HIs to conventional infusions. Only 2 patients reported an urgent/emergent visit for HI-related problems.

CONCLUSIONS

HI appears to be safe in IBD patients receiving IFX and VDZ. However, patients with fewer resources and more comorbidities are at increased risk for an urgent/emergent visit post-HIs. The overall patient experience with HI is positive. Expansion of HIs may result in decreased therapy-related logistic burden for carefully selected patients.

Hypersensitivity and Immune-related Adverse Events in Biologic Therapy

Biologic medications are an expanding field of therapeutics for various medical conditions including cancer and inflammatory diseases. Due to their targeted approach to therapy, biologics can be less toxic than traditional systemic medications. However, as use becomes more widespread, adverse effects from biologic administration have also become apparent. Immune-related adverse events are a common mechanism by which biologics can cause on-target immune-related toxicities and both immediate and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions can be mediated by cytokine release or antibody mediated reactions, while delayed-type hypersensitivity is most often caused by serum sickness-like reactions. Additionally, biologics used for treatment of cancer using checkpoint blockade and rheumatologic disease using cytokine blockade can result in autoimmunity. Finally, when inflammatory cytokines are targeted for treatment of autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease, the host immune defense can be compromised predisposing to secondary immunodeficiency. This review will discuss the mechanisms of these reactions and discuss examples of biologics implicated in each of these adverse events.

Premedication Does Not Influence the Incidence of Infliximab Infusion Reactions in Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Single Center Case-Control Study

Background: Infusion reactions (IRs) are the most common adverse events (AEs) of infliximab (IFX) treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Prophylactic premedication (PM) with corticosteroids or antihistamines prior to IFX infusions has been used in clinical practice, but its efficacy is not known. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of steroid PM on IR incidence in pediatric patients with IBD receiving IFX. Methods: We performed a case–control study that included pediatric patients with IBD receiving IFX. Patients were divided into four subgroups according to the agent and PM they received: Remicade (original drug) + PM, and two biosimilars—Reshma +/− PM, and Flixabi—PM. At our site, until 2018, PM with steroids was used as a part of standard IFX infusion (PM+); however, since then, this method has no longer been administered (PM−). IRs were divided into mild/severe reactions. Differences between subgroups were assessed with the appropriate chi-square test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between PM and IR incidence, correcting for co-medication usage. Results: There were 105 children (55 PM+, 44 male, mean age 15 years) included in the study who received 1276 infusions. There was no difference between the PM+ and PM− subgroups, either in incidence of IR (18.2% vs. 16.0% of patients, p > 0.05) or in percentage of infusions followed by IR (2.02% vs. 1.02% of infusions, p > 0.5). The OR of developing IR when using PM was 0.34, and the difference in IRs ratio in PM+ and PM− patients was not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.034–1.9). There were 11/18 (61.1%) severe IRs (anaphylactic shock) reported in all patients (both PM+ and PM−). Conclusion: At our site, the incidence of IR was low, and PM did not decrease the incidence of IR in pediatric patients with IBD receiving IFX. These results indicate that PM with steroids should not be a standard part of IFX infusion to prevent IR.

Comparison of Adverse Events Among Home- vs Facility-Administered Biologic Infusions, 2007-2017

IMPORTANCE

Infusion reactions occur in 7% to 20% of patients receiving biologics. Home infusions are convenient and incur lower costs but may be associated with more adverse events; the safety of receiving biologic infusions for immune-mediated diseases at home remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether patients receiving home biologic infusions have increased adverse events requiring emergency department (ED) or hospital admission compared with patients receiving facility infusions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large national insurer for adult patients who received biologic infusions for immune-mediated disease between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms or bone marrow transplantation were excluded. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to October 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after administration of a biologic infusion at home vs at a facility; secondary outcomes included discontinuation of the biologic after an ED or hospital admission and postinfusion mortality.

RESULTS

Of a total of 57 220 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [14.8] years; 512 314 [68.1%] women) who received 752 150 biologic infusions (34 078 home infusions [4.5%] to 3954 patients and 718 072 facility infusions [95.5%] to 54 770 patients), patients who received home infusions were younger (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [13.2] vs 51.3 [14.8] years), more likely to be men (14 031 [41.2%] vs 225 668 [31.4%]), and had a lower Charlson comorbidity score compared with patients who received facility infusions (mean [SD] score, 0.5 [1.0] vs 1.1 [1.3]). Home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after the infusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .002) and 28% increased odds of discontinuation of the biologic after the ED or hospital admission (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51; P = .005). There was no difference in postinfusion mortality between home or facility infusions. The rates of adverse events were highest with home infusions of tocilizumab (48 of 481 infusions [10.0%]), vedolizumab (150 of 2681 infusions [5.6%]), and infliximab (1085 of 20 653 infusions [5.3%]), although the number of tocilizumab and vedolizumab infusions was low.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care. Because the number of home infusions has increased and is expected to continue to rise, the safety implications of administering biologic infusions at home needs to be further assessed.

Cutaneous Manifestations in Biological-Treated Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Narrative Review

The biologic era has greatly improved the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Biologics can however induce a wide variety of skin eruptions, especially those targeting the TNF-α and Th17 pathway. These include infusion reactions, eczema, psoriasis, lupus, alopecia areata, vitiligo, lichenoid reactions, granulomatous disorders, vasculitis, skin cancer, and cutaneous infections. It is important to recognize these conditions as treatment-induced adverse reactions and adapt the treatment strategy accordingly. Some conditions can be treated topically while others require cessation or switch of the biological therapy. TNF-α antagonists have the highest rate adverse skin eruptions followed by ustekinumab and anti-integrin receptor blockers. In this review, we provide an overview of the most common skin eruptions which can be encountered in clinical practice when treating IBD (Inflammatory bowel disease) patients and propose a therapeutic approach for each condition.

Infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease. Is premedication necessary?

BACKGROUND

The use of infliximab (IFX) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been associated with a 1-6% risk of infusion reactions. The usefulness of premedication with corticosteroids, paracetamol and /or antihistamines is controversial.

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess, in IBD patients on IFX, whether there are differences in secondary reactions to the infusion between those who use premedication or not.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed identifying patients with a diagnosis of IBD who received IFX at our institution between January 2009 and July 2019. Acute reactions were defined as those that occurred in the first 24 hours postinfusion and late reactions for more than 24 hours. Infusion reactions were classified as mild, moderate and severe. Descriptive and association statistics were used (χ²; p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included with 1,263 infusions in total, 52% men. Median infusions per patient was 22 (2-66). All induction infusions were administered with premedication, and in maintenance in 57% of them. Premedication was given with hydrocortisone, chlorphenamine and paracetamol. Most of reactions were acute, mild or moderate in severity and no patient needed to discontinue IFX. In the maintenance group, there were 9/718 (1.2%) infusion reactions with premedication and 4/358 (1.1%) without it (p = 0.606). In the induction group, there were 8/187 (4.3%) infusion reactions, significantly higher when compared with both maintenance groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this group, premedication use during maintenance was not effective at reducing the rate of infusion reactions. These results suggest that premedication would not be necessary.