The outcome of infliximab dose doubling in 157 patients with ulcerative colitis after loss of response to infliximab

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Loss of Response and Need for Dose Escalation of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to systematically assess the annual loss of response and dose escalation rates for infliximab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response. Annual loss of response, dose escalation rates, and clinical benefit after dose escalation were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies with 1-year follow-up or less.

RESULTS

We included 50 unique studies assessing loss of response (infliximab, n = 24; adalimumab, n = 21) or dose escalation (infliximab, n = 21; adalimumab, n = 16). The pooled annual loss of response for infliximab was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-14.3) and 13.6% (95% CI, 9.3-19.9) for studies with 1-year follow-up. The pooled annual loss of response for adalimumab was 13.4% (95% CI, 8.2-21.8) and 23.3% (95% CI, 15.4-35.1) for studies with 1-year follow-up. Annual pooled dose escalation rates were 13.8% (95% CI, 8.7-21.7) for infliximab and 21.3% (95% CI, 14.4-31.3) for adalimumab, regaining clinical benefit in 72.4% and 52.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively. Uniform definitions are needed to facilitate more robust evaluations.

Dose Escalation of Biologics in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: Outcomes From the ODESSA-UC Study

Background

Dose escalation of biologics may regain treatment response in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, dose escalation rates and associated outcomes and costs are not well characterized in biologic-naïve patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-α) treatments, such as infliximab or adalimumab or vedolizumab.

Methods

ODESSA-UC, a retrospective cohort study investigating dose escalation in patients with UC who had received first-line biologics, used data from IBM MarketScan databases. Adults with UC and ≥1 claim for an index drug (adalimumab, infliximab, or vedolizumab) were eligible. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the adjusted rate of dose escalation. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of experiencing adverse outcomes (corticosteroid use, infection, sepsis, or inflammatory bowel disease-related hospitalization) and incurring index drug costs.

Results

A year after the start of maintenance, a lower proportion of patients experienced dose escalation with vedolizumab (22.3%) than adalimumab (43.0%). The dose escalation risk was significantly higher for infliximab (hazard ratio [HR], 1.894; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.486-2.413) and adalimumab (HR, 2.120; 95% CI, 1.680-2.675) than for vedolizumab. The odds of experiencing an adverse outcome after dose escalation were higher for anti-TNF-α treatments than for vedolizumab (odds ratio, 2.052; 95% CI, 1.200-3.507). Index drug costs after dose escalation were lowest for vedolizumab.

Conclusions

Patients with UC receiving vedolizumab had a lower risk of dose escalation and lower subsequent costs than patients receiving anti-TNF-α treatments. Our study demonstrates the possible clinical and economic implications of dose escalation.

Dose Escalation Patterns of Advanced Therapies in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalation is one of the treatment approaches studied and suggested in advanced therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to identify and characterize the dosing escalation patterns of advanced therapies in CD and UC.

METHODS

Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2011 and October 2021 and limited to non-interventional studies in English language. Congress and bibliographic searches were also conducted. Articles were screened by two independent researchers. Dose escalation patterns were described and summarized considering the regional regulatory label recommendation (in North America [NA] or outside of North America [ONA]).

RESULTS

Among 3190 CD and 2116 UC articles identified in the Ovid searches, 100 CD and 54 UC studies were included in the SLR, with more studies conducted ONA. Most studies reported an initial maintenance dose pattern aligned with the lower starting dose per local regulatory label; however, several ONA studies (n = 13 out of 14) reported ustekinumab every 8 weeks as starting maintenance pattern in CD. In ONA studies, the median within-guideline escalation rates in CD and UC were 43% in ustekinumab (CD only), 33% and 32% for vedolizumab; 29% and 39% for adalimumab; and 14% and 10% for infliximab. Evidence regarding dose escalation patterns for tofacitinib, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab was limited. Some dose escalation patterns outside of label recommendations were observed including ustekinumab every 8 weeks to every 4 weeks and vedolizumab every 8 weeks to every 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation strategies are widely documented in the literature. The reported dose escalation patterns and escalation rates vary by region and by CD and UC. Most escalation patterns reported were aligned with regulatory recommendations while some reported more diverse or aggressive dose escalation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021289251.

Precision medicine and drug optimization in adult inflammatory bowel disease patients

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) encompass two main entities including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Although having a common global pathophysiological mechanism, IBD patients are characterized by a significant interindividual heterogeneity and may differ by their disease type, disease locations, disease behaviours, disease manifestations, disease course as well as treatment needs. Indeed, although the therapeutic armamentarium for these diseases has expanded rapidly in recent years, a proportion of patients remains with a suboptimal response to medical treatment due to primary non-response, secondary loss of response or intolerance to currently available drugs. Identifying, prior to treatment initiation, which patients are likely to respond to a specific drug would improve the disease management, avoid unnecessary side effects and reduce the healthcare expenses. Precision medicine classifies individuals into subpopulations according to clinical and molecular characteristics with the objective to tailor preventative and therapeutic interventions to the characteristics of each patient. Interventions would thus be performed only on those who will benefit, sparing side effects and expense for those who will not. This review aims to summarize clinical factors, biomarkers (genetic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolic, radiomic or from the microbiota) and tools that could predict disease progression to guide towards a step-up or top-down strategy. Predictive factors of response or non-response to treatment will then be reviewed, followed by a discussion about the optimal dose of drug required for patients. The time at which these treatments should be administered (or rather can be stopped in case of a deep remission or in the aftermath of a surgery) will also be addressed. IBD remain biologically complex, with multifactorial etiopathology, clinical heterogeneity as well as temporal and therapeutic variabilities, which makes precision medicine especially challenging in this area. Although applied for many years in oncology, it remains an unmet medical need in IBD.

Management of Non-response and Loss of Response to Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has been successfully used as first-line biologic treatment for moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in both "step-up" and "top-down" approaches, and has become a cornerstone of IBD management. However, in a proportion of patients the effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy is sub-optimal. Either patients do not achieve adequate initial response (primary non-response) or they lose response after initial success (loss of response). Therapeutic drug monitoring determines drug serum concentrations and the presence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs) and can help guide treatment optimization to improve patient outcomes. For patients with low drug concentrations who are ADAb-negative or display low levels of ADAbs, dose escalation is recommended. Should response remain unchanged following dose optimization the question whether to switch within class (anti-TNF) or out of class (different mechanism of action) arises. If ADAb levels are high and the patient has previously benefited from anti-TNF therapy, then switching within class is a viable option as ADAbs are molecule specific. Addition of an immunomodulator may lead to a decrease in ADAbs and a regaining of response in a proportion of patients. If a patient does not achieve a robust therapeutic response with an initial anti-TNF despite adequate drug levels, then switching out of class is appropriate. In conjunction with the guidance above, other factors including patient preference, age, comorbidities, disease phenotype, extra-intestinal manifestations, and treatment costs need to be factored into the treatment decision. In this review we discuss current evidence in this field and provide guidance on therapeutic decision-making in clinical situations.

Optimizing biologic therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: a Delphi consensus in the United Arab Emirates

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are chronic, relapsing-remitting inflammatory conditions with a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life and work productivity. Treatment of IBD has been revolutionized by the advent of biologic therapies, initially with anti-TNF agents and more recently with multiple alternatives targets, and yet more under development.

OBJECTIVES

Approximatively one third of patients do not respond to biologic therapy and more importantly a significant proportion experiences partial response or loss of response during treatment. The latter are common clinical situations and paradoxically are not addressed in the commercial drug labels and available guidelines. There is therefore a clinical need for physicians to understand when and how eventually to optimize the biologic therapy.

DESIGN

This consensus using a Delphi methodology was promoted and supported by the Emirates Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology to close this gap.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Following an extensive systematic review of over 60,000 studies, 81 studies with dose escalation and five addressing drug monitoring were selected and in addition five systematic reviews and three guidelines.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

after three rounds of voting 18 statements were selected with agreement ranging from of 80% to 100.

Frequency and Effectiveness of Empirical Anti-TNF Dose Intensification in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in inflammatory bowel disease occurs in a high proportion of patients. Our aim was to evaluate the loss of response to anti-TNF therapy, considered as the need for dose intensification (DI), DI effectiveness and the possible variables influencing its requirements. Bibliographical searches were performed.

SELECTION

prospective and retrospective studies assessing DI in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients treated for at least 12 weeks with an anti-TNF drug.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies using anti-TNF as a prophylaxis for the postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease or those where DI was based on therapeutic drug monitoring.

DATA SYNTHESIS

effectiveness by intention-to-treat (random effects model). Data were stratified by medical condition (ulcerative colitis vs. Crohn's disease), anti-TNF drug and follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-three studies (33,241 patients) were included. Overall rate of the DI requirement after 12 months was 28% (95% CI 24-32, I2 = 96%, 41 studies) in naïve patients and 39% (95% CI 31-47, I2 = 86%, 18 studies) in non-naïve patients. The DI requirement rate was higher both in those with prior anti-TNF exposure (p = 0.01) and with ulcerative colitis (p = 0.02). The DI requirement rate in naïve patients after 36 months was 35% (95% CI 28-43%; I2 = 98%; 18 studies). The overall short-term response and remission rates of empirical DI in naïve patients were 63% (95% CI 48-78%; I2 = 99%; 32 studies) and 48% (95% CI: 39-58%; I2 = 92%; 25 studies), respectively. The loss of response to anti-TNF agents-and, consequently, DI-occurred frequently in inflammatory bowel disease (approximately in one-fourth at one year and in one-third at 3 years). Empirical DI was a relatively effective therapeutic option.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY].

RESULTS

At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Comparison of loss of response between anti-tumor necrosis factor alone and combined use with immunomodulators in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Combination therapy with immunomodulators (IMMs) was proposed as a strategy to prevent the development of loss of response (LOR) to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the effect is unclear in patients already exposed to IMMs. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether combination therapy with IMMs is superior to monotherapy for prevention of LOR to anti-TNF.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients in Seoul National University Bundang Hospital with IBD between January 2009 and October 2018. LOR was defined as clinical deterioration after maintenance of anti-TNF for at least 6 months. We investigated the difference in incidence of LOR to anti-TNF between the monotherapy and combination groups. We additionally assessed factors affecting LOR development to anti-TNF.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients with IBD were included in this study (monotherapy 61 patients; combination 55 patients). Overall, LOR to anti-TNF occurred in 31 patients during the follow-up period. The combination of an anti-TNF agent and IMM showed no significant difference in the incidence of LOR compared to anti-TNF agent monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.786 to 3.148; p = 0.182). Female sex was significantly associated with the development of LOR to anti-TNF (HR, 3.032; 95% CI, 1.467 to 6.268; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Anti-TNF and IMM combination therapy did not prove efficacious in preventing the development of LOR in IBD patients. Female sex was associated with the development of LOR to anti-TNF; further studies are required to confirm these results.

Dose escalation and switching of biologics in ulcerative colitis: a systematic literature review in real-world evidence

Background: Biologics used to treat ulcerative colitis (UC) may lose their effect over time, requiring patients to undergo dose escalation or treatment switching, and systematic literature reviews of real-world evidence on these topics are lacking. Aim: To summarize the occurrence and outcomes of dose escalation and treatment switching in UC patients in real-world evidence. Methods: Studies were searched through MEDLINE, MEDLINE IN PROCESS, Embase and Cochrane (2006-2017) as well as proceedings from three major scientific meetings. Results: In total, 41 studies were included in the review among which 35 covered dose escalation and 12 covered treatment switching of biologics. Tumor necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) escalation for all patients included at induction ranged from 5% (6 months) to 50% (median 0.67 years) and 15.2% to 70.8% (8 weeks) for anti-TNF induction responders. Mean/median time to dose escalation on anti-TNF ranged from 1.84 to 11 months. The most common switching pattern, infliximab → adalimumab, occurred in 3.8% (median 5.6 years) to 25.5% (mean 3.3 years) of patients. Conclusions: Dose escalation and treatment switching of biologics may be considered as indicators of suboptimal therapy suggesting a lack of long-term remission and response under current therapies.

Optimised infliximab monotherapy is as effective as optimised combination therapy, but is associated with higher drug consumption in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Combination treatment with azathioprine for 6-12 months is the preferred strategy for starting infliximab due to improved pharmacokinetics. However, optimised infliximab monotherapy with proactive dose escalations in case of low trough levels is a safer but under-studied alternative.

AIM

To compare the clinical success and infliximab consumption of combination vs optimised monotherapy strategies.

METHODS

We studied the clinical success and infliximab consumption of both strategies in 149 patients (94 Crohn's disease; 55 ulcerative colitis) starting infliximab and undergoing intensive drug monitoring assisted treatment optimisation.

RESULTS

The drug retention rates were similar for optimised monotherapy and combination treatment after induction (96% vs 97%, P = 0.73), after the first year (90% vs 83%, P = 0.23) and at the end of follow-up (74% vs 75%, P = 0.968). Similarly, no differences were observed for steroid use at year 1 (5% vs 14%, P = 0.08) or mucosal healing at the end of follow-up (64% vs 67%, P = 0.8). Higher infliximab consumption (7.6 mg/kg q8 weeks [interquartile range (IQR): 5.9-10.3] vs 6.4 mg/kg q8 weeks [IQR: 5.2-8.0], P = 0.019) combined with lower trough levels (1.7 µg/mL [IQR: 0.3-6.6] vs 5.0 µg/mL [2.5-8.7], P = 0.012) resulted in almost 3-fold higher drug-to-trough ratio (3.9 vs 1.5) in monotherapy compared to combination strategy at year 1. At the end of follow-up, when azathioprine had been discontinued for a median of 14 [IQR: 3-33] months, these differences disappeared.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, optimised infliximab monotherapy was as clinically effective as combination therapy but was associated with significantly higher infliximab consumption. The infliximab-sparing effect disappeared after azathioprine withdrawal.

Granulomonocytapheresis as a cell-dependent treatment option for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Concepts and clinical features for better therapeutic outcomes

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are major phenotypes of the chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which afflicts millions of individuals throughout the world with debilitating symptoms. The chronic nature of IBD means that patients require life-long medications, and this may lead to drug dependency, loss of response together with adverse side effects as additional morbidity factors. The efficacy of antitumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α biologics has validated the role of inflammatory cytokines notably TNF-α in the exacerbation and perpetuation of IBD. However, cytokines are released by myeloid lineage leucocytes like the CD14⁺ CD16⁺ monocyte phenotype. Additionally in IBD, myeloid leucocytes are elevated with activation behavior, while lymphocytes are compromised. Therefore, patients' leucocytes appear logical targets of therapy. Adsorptive granulomonocytapheresis (GMA) with an Adacolumn uses carriers, which interact with the Fcγ receptor expressing leucocytes and deplete the elevated myeloid leucocytes, while the neutrophils, which re-enter the circulation via the Adacolumn outflow (≥40%) are phagocytosed by CD19 B-cells to become interleukin (IL)-10 producing Bregs or CD19^high CD1D^high B-cells. IL-10 is an anti-inflammatory cytokine. GMA has been applied to treat patients with IBD. The efficacy outcomes have been impressive as well as disappointing, the clinical response to GMA defines the patients' disease course and severity at entry. Efficacy outcomes in patients with deep ulcers together with extensive loss of the mucosal tissue are not encouraging, while patients without these features respond well and attain a favorable long-term disease course. Accordingly, for responder patients, GMA fulfills a desire to be treated without drugs.

Anti-infliximab antibody concentrations can guide treatment intensification in patients with Crohn's disease who lose clinical response

BACKGROUND

The presence of antibodies towards infliximab (ATI) is associated with lower infliximab (IFX) trough concentrations and loss of response. IFX treatment intensification is effective for restoring response in most, but not all patients with Crohn's disease (CD).

AIM

To compare outcome, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of treatment intensification strategies in patients with CD who lost clinical response to IFX.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including 103 patients with CD who lost clinical response during IFX maintenance therapy and therefore received a double dose IFX (10 mg/kg) and/or a next infusion after a shortened interval. IFX and ATI concentrations were measured in consecutive trough samples, just before (T0) and after (T+1) treatment intensification.

RESULTS

Clinical response (physicians' global assessment) and biological response and remission (CRP) were restored in 63%, 42% and 24% of patients (evaluated at T+1). Treatment intensification increased IFX trough concentrations from 1.2 μg/mL [0.3-3.6] at T0 to 3.6 μg/mL [0.5-10.2] at T+1 (P < .0001). Using a drug tolerant assay, ATI were detected in the T0 sample of 47% of patients. ATI negatively impacted the achieved IFX trough concentration (Spearman r -0.57, P < .0001) and the probability of clinical response (P = 0.034) at T+1. When ATI were quantifiable but <282 ng/mL eq. at T0, combined interval shortening and dose doubling was more effective for restoring therapeutic IFX trough concentrations (≥3 μg/mL at T+1) than dose doubling alone, which in turn was more effective than interval shortening alone (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Antibodies towards infliximab can guide clinical decision-making on treatment intensification.

Repeated intensified infliximab induction - results from an 11-year prospective study of ulcerative colitis using a novel treatment algorithm

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents play a pivotal role in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC), and yet, no international consensus on when to discontinue therapy exists.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to study the long-term performance of a treatment algorithm of repeated intensified induction therapy with infliximab (IFX) to remission, followed by discontinuation in patients with UC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe UC were enroled in an open prospective study design. The following algorithm was implemented: (a) intensified induction treatment to remission (Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index score 0-2); (b) discontinuation of IFX; and (c) reinduction treatment if relapse. Mucosal gene expression for TNF was measured with qPCR.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were included. The median observation time was 47 and 51 months in intention to treat and per protocol. Remission rates of the first three inductions were 95, 93 and 91% per protocol and 83, 56 and 59% by intention to treat. The median time in remission was 40 months per protocol and 34 months by intention to treat. Long-term remission without further anti-TNF treatment during the observation period was obtained for 41%, with a median observation time of 48 months (range: 18-129 months). The median time to relapse was 33 and 11 months with/without normalization of mucosal TNF, respectively. The 5-year success rate for maintaining the effect of IFX in the algorithm was 66%.

CONCLUSION

The treatment algorithm is highly effective for achieving long-term clinical remission in UC. Normalization of mucosal TNF gene expression predicts long-term remission upon discontinuation of IFX.

Mechanisms behind efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in inflammatory bowel diseases

Biological treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is successful in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). All TNF inhibitors antagonize the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-α but with varying efficacies in IBD. The variations in efficacy probably are caused by structural differences between the agents that affect their mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic properties. Several mechanisms have been proposed, such as modulation of the expression of pro-inflammatory mediators and a reduction in the number of activated immune cells. However, it seems that clinical efficacy is the result of a number of different mechanisms and that binding of transmembrane TNF by TNF inhibitors. Knowledge of the mechanisms of action has been obtained mainly through the use of in vitro assays that may differ significantly from the situation in vivo. This review discusses the available data on TNF inhibitors in order to identify mechanisms of importance for their efficacy in IBD. Thus, a better understanding of the mechanistic basis for clinical efficacy can lead to a more rational use of TNF inhibitors in the management of IBD.