Utilization of Colonoscopy Following Treatment Initiation in U.S. Commercially Insured Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease, 2013-2019

Precision Medicine in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Spotlight on Emerging Molecular Biomarkers

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) remain challenging in terms of understanding their causes and in terms of diagnosing, treating, and monitoring patients. Modern diagnosis combines biomarkers, imaging, and endoscopic methods. Common biomarkers like CRP and fecal calprotectin, while invaluable tools, have limitations and are not entirely specific to IBD. The limitations of existing markers and the invasiveness of endoscopic procedures highlight the need to discover and implement new markers. With an ideal biomarker, we could predict the risk of disease development, as well as the possibility of response to a particular therapy, which would be significant in elucidating the pathogenesis of the disease. Recent research in the fields of machine learning, proteomics, epigenetics, and gut microbiota provides further insight into the pathogenesis of the disease and is also revealing new biomarkers. New markers, such as BAFF, PGE-MUM, oncostatin M, microRNA panels, αvβ6 antibody, and S100A12 from stool, are increasingly being identified, with αvβ6 antibody and oncostatin M being potentially close to being presented into clinical practice. However, the specificity of certain markers still remains problematic. Furthermore, the use of expensive and less accessible technology for detecting new markers, such as microRNAs, represents a limitation for widespread use in clinical practice. Nevertheless, the need for non-invasive, comprehensive markers is becoming increasingly important regarding the complexity of treatment and overall management of IBD.

Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-TNF in Combination With Low-Dose Methotrexate vs Anti-TNF Monotherapy in Pediatric Crohn's Disease: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab, are a mainstay of pediatric Crohn's disease therapy; however, nonresponse and loss of response are common. As combination therapy with methotrexate may improve response, we performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pragmatic trial to compare tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with oral methotrexate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with pediatric Crohn's disease initiating infliximab or adalimumab were randomized in 1:1 allocation to methotrexate or placebo and followed for 12-36 months. The primary outcome was a composite indicator of treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included anti-drug antibodies and patient-reported outcomes of pain interference and fatigue. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were collected.

RESULTS

Of 297 participants (mean age, 13.9 years, 35% were female), 156 were assigned to methotrexate (110 infliximab initiators and 46 adalimumab initiators) and 141 to placebo (102 infliximab initiators and 39 adalimumab initiators). In the overall population, time to treatment failure did not differ by study arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05). Among infliximab initiators, there were no differences between combination and monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.55-1.56). Among adalimumab initiators, combination therapy was associated with longer time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81). A trend toward lower anti-drug antibody development in the combination therapy arm was not significant (infliximab: odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07; adalimumab: odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.07). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Combination therapy resulted in more AEs but fewer SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adalimumab but not infliximab initiators, patients with pediatric Crohn's disease treated with methotrexate combination therapy experienced a 2-fold reduction in treatment failure with a tolerable safety profile.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT02772965.