Safety and efficacy of BI 695501 versus adalimumab reference product in patients with advanced Crohn's disease (VOLTAIRE-CD): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Consistent efficacy outcomes between phase 2 and phase 3 trials in Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis in adults: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The approval of novel biologic agents and small molecules for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) is dependent on phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, these trials sometimes fail to achieve the expected efficacy outcomes observed in phase 2 trials.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated biologic agents and small molecules using paired regimens in both phase 2 and phase 3. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up until February 13, 2024. The revised Cochrane tool was utilized to assess the risk of bias. A generalized linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) was employed to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for efficacy outcomes in phase 2 trials compared to phase 3.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 23 trials with 10 paired regimens for CD and 30 trials with 11 paired regimens for UC. The GLMM analysis revealed that phase 2 CD trials had higher outcomes measured by the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) by 9-13% without statistical significance: CDAI-150: OR, 1.12 (95% CI 0.83-1.51, p = 0.41); CDAI-100: OR, 1.09 (95% CI 0.88-1.35, p = 0.40); or CDAI-70: OR, 1.13 (95% CI 0.61-2.08, p = 0.66). For UC, two efficacy outcomes were estimated to be equally reported in phase 2/phase 3 pairs: clinical remission: OR, 1.00 (95% CI 0.83-1.20, p = 0.96); endoscopic improvement: OR, 0.98 (95% CI 0.83-1.15, p = 0.79). However, the rate of clinical response was underestimated in phase 2 by 19%: OR, 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.95, p = 0.03). The inclusion criterion for the type of Mayo score for UC had a significant interaction with the study phase to influence the difference in clinical response (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the main efficacy outcomes for CD and UC remain consistent between phase 2 and phase 3 trials, except for UC response rates. The efficacy data obtained from phase 2 trials can be considered reliable for the design of subsequent phase 3 trials.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42023407947).

Relative bioavailability, immunogenicity, and safety of two adalimumab-adbm formulations in healthy volunteers: a double-blind, randomized, single-dose, parallel-arm Phase I trial (VOLTAIRE-HCLF)

OBJECTIVE

VOLTAIRE-HCLF compared the relative bioavailability of citrate-free high-concentration and reference formulations of the biosimilar adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo®), including pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles, immunogenicity, and safety profiles in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

Healthy volunteers (N = 200) aged 18-55 years and with body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 and no prior exposure to adalimumab were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single subcutaneous injection of either adalimumab-adbm 40 mg/0.4 mL (high-concentration formulation) or 40 mg/0.8 mL (reference formulation). Participants completed 13 follow-up visits over 57 days, followed by a safety follow-up period of up to 70 days.

RESULTS

The main PK parameters were similar for the high-concentration and reference groups. For all primary endpoints, the geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals of AUC0-1344, AUC0-∞, and Cmax for both groups were entirely within the standard 80-125% bioequivalence acceptance range at 101.88% (93.31-111.23%), 105.38% (95.06-116.81%), and 91.29% (84.38-98.76%), respectively. There were no differences in the proportion of anti-drug antibody-positive participants or in the distribution of anti-drug antibody titers between the two formulations at any time point after drug dosing. Participants who were given the high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-adbm experienced a lower incidence of adverse events and local reactions than those who were given the reference formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-concentration and reference adalimumab-adbm formulations had highly similar PK and immunogenicity profiles and were safe and well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05203289.

Biosimilars in IBD: What Every Clinician Needs to Know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biosimilars were introduced to decrease biologic-related expenditures, but their uptake in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains suboptimal. Herein, we review biosimilar concepts, current products available for IBD treatment, and resources to support biosimilar utilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a cornerstone of IBD treatment, biologics are costly due to their development. Biosimilars, which are biologic products highly similar to a reference product, aim to decrease these expenditures. Infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab biosimilars are approved for IBD, but uptake remains low due to biosimilar efficacy and safety concerns and delayed market entry. Clinicians can effectively address some of these barriers and help patients and healthcare systems reap the benefits of decreased costs and increased treatment access. Data shows comparable efficacy and safety outcomes with biosimilars in IBD. Several biosimilar products are available and in the pipeline, but efforts are needed from various stakeholders to bolster utilization and generate benefits.

Adalimumab Persistence and Its Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-World Study

Adalimumab biosimilar experience is still recent. Interchangeability differences could reduce persistence times. Our goal was to compare biosimilar persistence differences with a reference. A retrospective observational study was performed in three groups divided according to the adalimumab received. The primary outcome measure was persistence, represented with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and we secondarily evaluated security, efficacy, and biomarkers. We obtained approval from the regional ethical committee, and the study was conducted following the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Data from 104 patients were collected: 50 received the biosimilar, 29 received the reference, and 25 switched from the original to the biosimilar. After a follow-up of 12 months, the biosimilar's persistence was higher, without differences in mild adverse events per group. In contrast, there were differences in severe events, with the switched group's frequency being higher. Biomarkers were reduced at similar proportions in all groups, and 43% had a clinical response at week 20 without differences. Adalimumab biosimilars are a valuable option for IBD based on clinical equivalence that are less expensive than the original drug. Their use does not have a detrimental influence on disease, although there are a few nuances in terms of interchangeability. These results support increasing confidence in using biosimilars, thus promoting the better sustainability of health systems.

Treatment persistence and switching patterns of ABP 501 in European patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Approval of the adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar ABP 501 for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) indications was based on the principle of extrapolation, without indication-specific clinical trial data.

Objectives

To evaluate the real-world treatment patterns of ABP 501 in patients with IBD.

Design

Retrospective analysis of pharmacy claims data from Germany and France.

Methods

Continuously insured adult IBD patients who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 were included. Treatment persistence, adherence, and post-ABP 501 switching patterns were evaluated for two mutually exclusive groups: ADA-naïve patients (i.e. no baseline use of ADA products) and ADA-experienced patients (i.e. previously treated with ADA products).

Results

A total of 3362 German patients and 733 French patients were included, with 54.4% and 65.3% being ADA-naïve patients, respectively. Median persistence (95% CI) on ABP 501 was 10.9 months (9.8-11.6) in ADA-naïve patients and 14.2 months (12.7-15.2) in ADA-experienced patients in Germany; for the French cohort, ADA-naïve and -experienced patients had median persistence of 12.8 months (10.2-14.7) and 11.5 months (8.8-14.4), respectively. During the first 12 months of ABP 501 initiation, 53.7% of German patients and 51.0% of French patients were adherent to the therapy. About 20% of patients in both countries switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy. In the German cohort, ADA-naïve patients most frequently switched to non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor biologics, but ADA-experienced patients most commonly switched to reference product (RP); in the French cohort, patients most often switched to RP regardless of prior exposure to ADA products.

Conclusion

About 50% of patients persisted on and were adherent to ABP 501 therapy during the first 12 months after treatment initiation in two large European countries. Post-ABP 501, switching patterns varied between countries, indicating diversified treatment practices warranting further research on reason(s) for switching and potential overall treatment outcomes.

The PROPER Study: A 48-Week, Pan-European, Real-World Study of Biosimilar SB5 Following Transition from Reference Adalimumab in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease

BACKGROUND

The non-interventional PROPER study generated real-world evidence on clinical outcomes following transition in routine practice from reference adalimumab to the EMA-approved SB5 biosimilar adalimumab in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease.

METHODS

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Crohn's disease (CD), or ulcerative colitis (UC) were enrolled at 63 sites across Europe. Eligible patients received ≥ 16 weeks of routine treatment with reference adalimumab before transitioning to SB5, and were followed for 48 weeks post-transition. The primary objective was to evaluate candidate predictors (clinically relevant baseline variables with incidence ≥ 15% by indication cohort) associated with persistence on SB5 at 48 weeks post-initiation. Key primary outcome measures were persistence on SB5 (estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology) and clinical characteristics and disease activity scores at the time of transition to SB5 treatment (baseline).

RESULTS

A total of 955 eligible patients were enrolled (RA, n = 207; axSpA, n = 127; PsA, n = 162; CD, n = 447; UC, n = 12), of whom 932 (97.6%) completed follow-up and 722 (75.6%) were still receiving SB5 at week 48. Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% confidence interval, CI) of persistence on SB5 at week 48 for RA, axSpA, PsA, and CD were 0.86 (0.80-0.90), 0.80 (0.71-0.86), 0.81 (0.74-0.86), and 0.72 (0.67-0.76), respectively. The single candidate predictor associated with probability of SB5 discontinuation before week 48 was female sex [RA, axSpA, and CD cohorts; HR (95% CI): 3.53 (1.07-11.67), 2.38 (1.11-5.14), and 2.21 (1.54-3.18), respectively]. Disease activity scores remained largely unchanged throughout the study, with proportions by cohort in remission at baseline versus week 48 being 59.2% versus 57.2%, 81.0% versus 78.0%, 94.7% versus 93.7%, and 84.0% versus 85.1% for patients with RA, axSpA, PsA, and CD, respectively. Similarly, the SB5 dosing regimen remained unchanged for the majority of patients from baseline to week 48, the most common regimen being 40 mg every 2 weeks. In total, 232 patients (24.3%) reported at least one adverse drug reaction, and most events were mild; eight patients (3.9%) in the RA cohort experienced nine serious adverse events (SAEs; two possibly related to SB5); eight patients (4.9%) in the PsA cohort experienced nine SAEs (one possibly related to SB5); 22 patients (4.9%) in the CD cohort experienced 27 SAEs (four possibly related to SB5); and no SAEs were observed in the UC cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of female sex in RA, axSpA, and CD, none of the candidate predictors were associated with SB5 discontinuation. Persistence on SB5 was high, treatment effectiveness was maintained, and no safety signals were detected.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04089514.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar (HS016) in inflammatory bowel disease from the real-world study

Objective: Adalimumab (ADA) is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The equal effect between the original ADA and biosimilars from Europe and the United States has been shown. However, the biosimilar of ADA is different in China. The effectiveness and safety data of ADA biosimilar (HS016) in China have yet to be discovered. Patients and methods: 91 patients (75 CD, 16 UC) received HS016 treatment and were enrolled in this study. Therapeutic response and safety profiles were analyzed. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) was also carried out among nonresponse patients. After being considered as "nonresponse" (after three or 6 months of treatment), 20 patients' serum TNFα concentrations were measured and correlated to their disease severity. Results: Among active CD patients (n = 61), 75.4% (46/61) at 12 w, 73.8% (45/61) at 26 w, 50.8% (31/61) at 52 w achieved the clinical response, respectively; 55.7% (34/61) at 12 w, 65.6% (40/61) at 26 w, and 45.9% (28/61) at 52 w achieved clinical remission. The maintained remission rates of CD (n = 14) in clinical remission were 100% (14/14) at 12 w, 78.6% (11/14) at 26 w, and 63.6% (7/11) at 52 w, respectively. Among active UC patients, 37.5% (6/16) at 12 w and 50% (8/16) at 26 w achieved clinical response. Total adverse event rates were 5.5% (5/91) during 52-week visits. Due to the inadequate serum drug concentration, 30.4% (7/23) of patients had poor clinical responses. Elevations of serum anti-drug antibodies occurred in one additional patient (4.3%). Conclusion: ADA biosimilar HS016 had good efficacy and safety in Chinese IBD patients.

Practical Management of Biosimilar Use in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Global Survey and an International Delphi Consensus

As the patents for biologic originator drugs expire, biosimilars are emerging as cost-effective alternatives within healthcare systems. Addressing various challenges in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains crucial. To shed light on physicians' current knowledge, beliefs, practical approaches, and concerns related to biosimilar adoption-whether initiating a biosimilar, transitioning from an originator to a biosimilar, or switching between biosimilars (including multiple switches and reverse switching)-a global survey was conducted. Fifteen physicians with expertise in the field of IBD from 13 countries attended a virtual international consensus meeting to develop practical guidance regarding biosimilar adoption worldwide, considering the survey results. This consensus centered on 10 key statements covering biosimilar effectiveness, safety, indications, rationale, multiple switches, therapeutic drug monitoring of biosimilars, non-medical switching, and future perspectives. Ultimately, the consensus affirmed that biosimilars are equally effective and safe when compared to originator drugs. They are considered suitable for both biologic-naïve patients and those who have previously been treated with originator drugs, with cost reduction being the primary motivation for transitioning from an originator drug to a biosimilar.

The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Treatment Landscape

The therapeutic landscape for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has changed considerably over the past two decades, owing to the development and widespread penetration of targeted therapies, including biologics and small molecules. While some conventional treatments continue to have an important role in the management of IBD, treatment of IBD is increasingly moving towards targeted therapies given their greater efficacy and safety in comparison to conventional agents. Early introduction of these therapies-particularly in persons with Crohn's disease-combining targeted therapies with traditional anti-metabolite immunomodulators and targeting objective markers of disease activity (in addition to symptoms), have been shown to improve health outcomes and will be increasingly adopted over time. The substantially increased costs associated with targeted therapies has led to a ballooning of healthcare expenditure to treat IBD over the past 15 years. The introduction of less expensive biosimilar anti-tumour necrosis factor therapies may bend this cost curve downwards, potentially allowing for more widespread access to these medications. Newer therapies targeting different inflammatory pathways and complementary and alternative therapies (including novel diets) will continue to shape the IBD treatment landscape. More precise use of a growing number of targeted therapies in the right individuals at the right time will help minimize the development of expensive and disabling complications, which has the potential to further reduce costs and improve outcomes.

Self-reported efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars after non-medical switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results of a multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on subjective disease control and perception of adverse events (AEs) during switching from original anti-TNF agents to biosimilars.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Hungarian patients with inflammatory bowel disease were interviewed after a mandatory non-medical switch from an infliximab (IFX) originator to a biosimilar GP1111 or from an adalimumab (ADA) originator to a biosimilar GP2017. Drug choice was based on patient's and physician's decision. Subjective efficacy was measured using a 10-point scale, and AEs were assessed. Difference in efficacy before and after the switch was compared within and between the drugs.

RESULTS

Seventy-three ADA and 106 IFX switching patients were interviewed. Subjective efficacy of IFX biosimilar was rated lower compared to IFX originator (8.72 ± 1.68 vs. 7.77 ± 2.34; p = 0.001). The ADA biosimilar was rated higher than its originator (9.02 ± 1.61 vs. 8.42 ± 1.93; p = 0.017). Patients receiving ADA biosimilar were more satisfied with the new treatment compared to IFX (p = 0.032). The incidence of new AEs was 85% in the ADA and 55% in the IFX group (1.79 vs. 0.93 AEs per patient, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Subjective efficacy of switching to a biosimilar was proven in case of ADA, while reduced efficacy was experienced with IFX biosimilar. Perception of AEs was high and varied between biosimilars.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics for moderate to severe Crohn's disease

Crohn's disease (CD) is a relapsing and progressive condition characterized by diarrhea, abdominal pain, weight loss, and hematochezia that results in serious complications such as perforations, fistulas, and abscesses. Various medications, interventions, and surgical treatments have been used to treat CD. The Korean guidelines for CD management were distributed in 2012 and revised in 2017 by the Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Research Group of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases. Substantial progress in mucosal immunologic research has elucidated the pathophysiology of IBD, leading to development of biological agents for treatment of CD. The first developed biologic agent, tumor necrosis factor-α agents, were shown to be efficacious in CD, heralding a new era in management of CD. Subsequently, vedolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against integrin α4β7, and ustekinumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the common p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23, were both approved for clinical use and are efficacious and safe for both induction and maintenance of remission in moderate-to-severe CD patients. Moreover, a recent study showed the non-inferiority of CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, compared with infliximab in CD patients. The third Korean guidelines for CD management provide updated information regarding treatment of moderate-to-severe CD patients with biologic agents.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

Non-medical switch from the originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease - a prospective, multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical data on the efficacy and safety of non-medical switch between adalimumab(ADA) biosimilars are limited.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term clinical efficacy, drug sustainability and safety comparing non-medical switches from the originator to biosimilar ADA, and between ADA biosimilars.

METHODS

276 consecutive patients on maintenance ADA therapy (n = 205 Crohn's disease, n = 71 ulcerative colitis) were included. Data on clinical efficacy, biomarkers and adverse events were collected at four time points: 8-12 weeks prior switch, at baseline/switch, 8-12 weeks and 20-24 weeks after switch. Drug survival was evaluated after a median 40(IQR:35-42) weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

A total 174 patients underwent a non-medical switch from the originator to a biosimilar, and 102 patients had a biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. No significant difference was found in clinical remission rates at any time point in patients switching from originator to biosimilar(87.3%/88.5%/86.5%/85.7%) or biosimilar to biosimilar(74.5%/78.4%/85.3%/79.8%). Mean C-reactive protein levels remained unchanged in both cohorts(p = 0.856 and p = 0.525). Drug survival was similar between the two cohorts with a probability of 91.6%(SE: 2.2) and 87.0%(SE:3.4) to stay on drug after 40 weeks(log-rank:0.96; p = 0.327). Five cases of injection related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Clinical benefit was sustained following non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar, or between biosimilars in adalimumab treated IBD patients.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Observational studies have shown similar efficacy and safety of biosimilars to biologic reference products. Shared decision-making is crucial to the successful implementation of these agents.

Is it time to include older adults in inflammatory bowel disease trials? A call for action

The therapeutic management of older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is challenging, particularly because of the absence of evidence-based guidelines for these patients, who seem to frequently be excluded from clinical trials. In this systematic review we investigated the exclusion of older patients with IBD from phase 3 studies registered on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, by assessing the upper limit of age exclusion criteria and the percentage of patients older than 65 years included in the trials. Exclusion criteria other than age were also recorded, and comorbidities were analysed separately. Our review of 222 phase 3 studies shows that older patients are frequently excluded from IBD clinical trials because of their age, which was used as an exclusion criterion in 129 (58%) of the 222 assessed trials. Of the 32 trials that detailed the percentage of included patients who were 65 years or older, only 763 (5·4%) patients of the 14 124 patients included were older than 65 years. In addition to age, patients were also excluded because of comorbidities (mainly renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular, and used as an exclusion criterion in 76% of trials), a history of dysplasia (45% of trials), and previous treatment for IBD (19% of trials). We propose a three-step process that should enable the inclusion of all older patients in IBD clinical trials, regardless of their age, comorbidities, and frailty.

Adalimumab-Adbm: The First Interchangeable Biosimilar for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to review the pharmacologic and clinical profile of adalimumab-adbm (BI 695501), the first interchangeable biosimilar for treatment of inflammatory diseases.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was conducted from inception to December 2021 using the keywords BI 695501 and adalimumab-adbm. Information was also obtained from published abstracts and package inserts.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies plus relevant literature on adalimumab-adbm pharmacologic and clinical profile were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Adalimumab-adbm approval was based on a series of phase 3 VOLTAIRE trials, which evaluated the biosimilar's efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis. Interchangeability status was granted based on data from the VOLTAIRE-X trial. The VOLTAIRE and VOLTAIRE-X studies demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety between adalimumab-adbm and reference adalimumab. Common adverse events included infections and injection site reactions. Similar to reference adalimumab, adalimumab-adbm contains black box warnings related to serious infections and malignancy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Adalimumab-adbm is the first interchangeable biosimilar to be approved for inflammatory diseases and has the potential to improve patient access to treatment while decreasing medication-related costs. However, it will not be commercially available for patient use until 2023 and its adoption into clinical practice may face potential barriers seen with other biosimilars.

CONCLUSION

As an interchangeable biosimilar with comparable efficacy and safety to reference adalimumab, adalimumab-adbm is an important advance toward cost-effective management of inflammatory diseases.

Is There a Best First Line Biological/Small Molecule in IBD: Are We Ready for Sequencing?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, life-long inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment strategy depends on the severity of the disease course. IBD physicians need to be aware of the life-long treatment options available. The goal is not only to achieve clinical remission but to halt or stabilize the chronic inflammation in the intestines to prevent further structural damage. Therefore, the use of early biologic therapy is recommended in moderate-to-severe IBD patients. However, in the last decade, use of therapeutic drug monitoring has increased considerably, opening an opportunity for sequencing. This review summarizes the available evidence on biologic and small molecules therapy in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical scenarios, including perianal CD, the elderly, extra intestinal manifestations, and pregnancy.

The efficacy of immunomodulators in the prevention and suppression of anti-drug antibodies to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

The development of biological agents against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) has revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), frequently achieving induction and maintenance of remission in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. However, a loss of response due to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is seen annually in approximately 20% of IBD patients receiving anti-TNF therapy. Current evidence suggests that the use of immunomodulators (IMM), such as thiopurines (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine) or methotrexate, may prevent or suppress ADA formation. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the available literature regarding the efficacy of IMM in the prevention and suppression of ADA development to anti-TNF therapy in patients with IBD.