High Anti-Infliximab Antibody Titers Do Not Impact Response to Subsequent Adalimumab Treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Challenges in IBD Research 2024: Precision Medicine

Precision medicine is part of 5 focus areas of the Challenges in IBD Research 2024 research document, which also includes preclinical human IBD mechanisms, environmental triggers, novel technologies, and pragmatic clinical research. Building on Challenges in IBD Research 2019, the current Challenges aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) research and deliver actionable approaches to address them with a focus on how these gaps can lead to advancements in interception, remission, and restoration for these diseases. The document is the result of multidisciplinary input from scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders, and represents a valuable resource for patient-centric research prioritization. In particular, the precision medicine section is focused on the main research gaps in elucidating how to bring the best care to the individual patient in IBD. Research gaps were identified in biomarker discovery and validation for predicting disease progression and choosing the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Other gaps were identified in making the best use of existing patient biosamples and clinical data, developing new technologies to analyze large datasets, and overcoming regulatory and payer hurdles to enable clinical use of biomarkers. To address these gaps, the Workgroup suggests focusing on thoroughly validating existing candidate biomarkers, using best-in-class data generation and analysis tools, and establishing cross-disciplinary teams to tackle regulatory hurdles as early as possible. Altogether, the precision medicine group recognizes the importance of bringing basic scientific biomarker discovery and translating it into the clinic to help improve the lives of IBD patients.

90K/Mac-2 BP Is a New Predictive Biomarker of Response to Infliximab Therapy in IBD Patients

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprising Crohn's disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC), are multifactorial disorders characterized by a chronic inflammatory status with the secretion of cytokines and immune mediators. Biologic drugs targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as infliximab, are broadly used in the treatment of IBD patients, but some patients lose responsiveness after an initial success. The research into new biomarkers is crucial for advancing personalized therapies and monitoring the response to biologics. The aim of this single center, observational study is to analyze the relationship between serum levels of 90K/Mac-2 BP and the response to infliximab, in a cohort of 48 IBD patients (30 CD and 18 UC), enrolled from February 2017 to December 2018. In our IBD cohort, high 90K serum levels were found at baseline in patients who then developed anti-infliximab antibodies at the fifth infusion (22 weeks after the first), becoming non-responders (9.76 ± 4.65 µg/mL compared to 6.53 ± 3.29 µg/mL in responder patients, p = 0.005). This difference was significant in the total cohort and in CD, but not significant in UC. We then analyzed the relationship between serum levels of 90K, C-reactive protein (CRP), and Fecal calprotectin. A significant positive correlation was found at baseline between 90K and CRP, the most common serum inflammation marker (R = 0.42, p = 0.0032). We concluded that circulating 90K could be considered a new non-invasive biomarker for monitoring the response to infliximab. Furthermore, 90K serum level determination, before the first infliximab infusion, in association with other inflammatory markers such as CRP, could assist in the choice of biologics for the treatment of IBD patients, thereby obviating the need for a drug switch due to loss of response, and so improving clinical practice and patient care.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in comparison to infliximab for Crohn's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX) are the cornerstones of the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD). It remains controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness and safety between IFX and ADA for CD.

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of ADA and IFX in CD.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. Cohort studies were considered for inclusion. The primary outcomes were induction of response and remission, maintenance of response and remission, and secondary loss of response. Adverse events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Fourteen cohort studies were included. There was no apparent difference between the two agents in the induction response [odds ratio (OR): 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.74, P = 0.14] and remission (OR: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.78–1.57, P = 0.57), maintenance response (OR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.76–1.53, P = 0.67) and remission (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 0.87–1.82, P = 0.22), and secondary loss of response (OR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.65–1.55, P = 0.97). Subgroup analysis revealed ADA and IFX had similar rates of response, remission, and loss of response either in anti-tumor necrosis factor-α naïve or non-naïve patients. Further, there was a similar result regardless of whether CD patients were treated with optimized therapy, including dose intensification, shortening interval, and combination immunomodulators. However, ADA had a fewer overall adverse events than IFX (OR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.42–0.91, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

ADA and IFX have similar clinical benefits for anti-tumor necrosis factor-α naïve or non-naïve CD patients. Overall adverse events rate is higher in patients in the IFX group.