Letter: new thresholds need to be defined when using point of care assays to monitor infliximab trough levels in IBD patients

Enhancing Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparative Analysis of Rapid Point-of-Care Infliximab, Adalimumab and Anti-Drug Antibodies' Determination against ELISA

The introduction of point-of-care (POC) assays into clinical practice in patients with inflammatory disease enables on-demand therapeutic decision making. The aim of this study was to compare the POC test Quantum blue (Bühlmann Laboratories) for infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADL), and its anti-drug antibodies with the traditional ELISA assay (Promonitor). A total of 200 serum samples were analyzed. Samples were classified into the following three different groups; sub-therapeutic range (IFX < 3 μg/mL and ADL < 5 μg/mL); therapeutic range (IFX: 3-7 μg/mL and ADL: 5-12 μg/mL) and supra-therapeutic range (IFX levels > 7 μg/mL and ADL levels > 12 μg/mL). Significant higher values were measured using the POC test (p < 0.001) for IFX results but no differences in ADL trough levels were observed (p = 0.3101). Spearman's correlation indicated a good correlation between the two assays (rs = 0.88 for ADL and rs = 0.93 for IFX), and McNemar's test revealed significant differences (p = 0.016) when classifying IFX samples between therapeutic and supra-therapeutic ranges but no significant differences were found among the other ranges for either IFX or ADL. These results show that we should be cautious when using these rapid measurement methods, and new targets should probably be defined for IFX when using this new analytical method.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Anti-TNFα Inhibitors: A Matter of Cut-Off Ranges

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a useful tool for optimising the use of anti-TNFα inhibitors in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). Recently, point-of-care methods for the quantification of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) have been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays (ELISAs). Here, we evaluated the performance, interchangeability, and agreement between an automated ELISA-based immunoassay (CHORUS Promonitor) and the lateral flow assay (RIDA^®QUICK) for the quantification of infliximab (IFX, n = 65) and adalimumab (ADM, n = 58) plasma levels in IBD patients. Thirty-two samples for IFX and twenty-three samples for ADM that tested positively for the presence of ADAs were also used. Overall, data analysis showed a good agreement of ADM trough concentrations (R² = 0.75) between the two assays as well as for ADA measurement (K > 0.8). However, IFX levels highlighted a weak correlation (R² = 0.58) between the two kits, with the RIDA^®QUICK assay overestimating IFX plasma values by 30% when compared to the CHORUS Promonitor kit. Results from this study show that the two assays are not quantitatively and qualitatively interchangeable due to substantial discrepancies in some results. Accordingly, the same assay should be used for the longitudinal follow-up of IBD patients.

Recent Advances in the Optimization of Anti-TNF Treatment in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Despite the evolution in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management during the last 20 years owing to the advent of new advanced therapies, anti-TNF agents still remain the cornerstone of therapy for both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. However, this does not only secure favorable outcomes for patients considering the progressive disease character and the high likelihood of primary or secondary loss of response. Therefore, trying to reach a better treatment approach and maximize the benefits anti-TNF agents offer, optimization strategies should be examined. It has been indicated that optimizing treatment with anti-TNF enhances drug efficacy and has been associated with improved disease outcomes and a complication-free disease course. From this perspective, we aim to provide an overview of currently available data and recent advances in the practices of anti-TNF treatment optimization. Special focus has been given to the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), as well as the utility of combining anti-TNF with an immunomodulator and the treat-to-target approach.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologics in Crohn's Disease

Reactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is considered the standard of care for optimizing biologics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) including Crohn's disease (CD). Preliminary data show that proactive TDM is associated with positive outcomes in IBD and can be also used to efficiently guide therapeutic decisions in specific clinical scenarios. Higher biological drug concentrations are associated with favorable therapeutic outcomes in specific IBD populations or phenotypes including pediatric CD, perianal fistulizing CD, small bowel CD, and following an ileocolonic resection for CD. Future perspectives of TDM include the use of rapid testing, pharmacogenomics, and pharmacokinetic dashboards toward individualized therapy.

Therapeutic drug monitoring for biological medications in inflammatory bowel disease

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is the measurement of serum drug concentrations and anti-drug-antibodies (ADA) for biologic therapies used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this article is to review the current literature concerning reactive and proactive TDM for both adults and children with IBD. Although optimal trough concentration windows for some of these medications are not well defined, there is mounting evidence to suggest that reactive TDM is associated with favorable therapeutic outcomes, including less immunogenicity, greater drug exposure, and a decreased risk of treatment failure. Moreover, while the exact mechanism of loss of response is not fully elucidated, the vast majority of studies have reported a decreased incidence of nonresponse and secondary loss of response when TDM is implemented. Proactive TDM, while even less understood in the literature, employs a schedule of preemptive analysis of serum trough concentrations to accordingly adjust the patient's biologic dosage. Proactive TDM may decrease the need for IBD-related surgery/hospitalization, and therefore merits future studies of investigation.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease: unmet needs and future perspectives

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has emerged as a useful tool for optimising the use of biologics, and in particular anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, challenges remain and are hindering the widespread implementation of TDM in clinical practice. These barriers include identification of the optimal drug concentration to target, the lag time between sampling and results, and the proper interpretation of anti-drug antibody titres among different assays. Solutions to overcome these barriers include the harmonisation of TDM assays and the use of point-of-care testing. Other unmet needs include well designed prospective studies and randomised controlled trials focusing on proactive TDM, particularly during induction therapy. Future studies should also investigate the utility of TDM for biologics other than anti-TNF therapies in both IBD and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, and the use of pharmacokinetic modelling dashboards and pharmacogenetics towards individual personalised medicine.

Clinical Impact of Corrections to Infliximab and Adalimumab Monitoring Results with the Homogeneous Mobility Shift Assay

An upward drift for both infliximab and adalimumab concentrations measured by the homogenous mobility shift assay (HMSA) was previously reported. We aimed to investigate the impact of this drift on clinical care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. This was a retrospective, multicenter study. Providers reviewed the individual patient data and drug concentrations before and after the laboratory corrections and then documented whether a different clinical decision would have been made had the corrected drug concentration been originally reported. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to investigate the association of a documented treatment change with treatment failure, defined as drug discontinuation for primary nonresponse, loss of response, or serious adverse event, adjusting for confounding factors. The study population consisted of 479 patients (infliximab, n = 219; adalimumab, n = 260). Upon review, 14.9% (71/479) patients would have had a different treatment decision made had the corrected drug concentration been initially reported. After a median follow-up of 10.6 months, 25.7% of patients (123/479) had treatment failure. A theoretical different clinical decision based on the corrected drug concentrations was not associated with treatment failure (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.452; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.805–2.618; p = 0.216), which was consistent for both infliximab (adjusted HR: 1.977; 95% CI: 0.695–5.627; p = 0.201) and adalimumab (adjusted HR: 1.484; 95% CI: 0.721–3.054; p = 0.284). The drift in infliximab and adalimumab concentrations in the HMSA assay affected treatment decisions in 15% of cases. However, this discrepancy was not associated with a higher cumulative probability for treatment failure.

Comparison of a new rapid method for the determination of adalimumab serum levels with two established ELISA kits

Background

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of adalimumab (ADA) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has gained increased attention since several studies showed a correlation between drug levels and mucosal healing. The limitations of routine usage of enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA) kits for measuring serum ADA concentrations have prompted the development of rapid methods, such as Quantum Blue (QB). We evaluated the interchangeability and agreement between the QB method and two established ELISA kits, Promonitor (PM) and Lisa-Tracker (LT).

Methods

Fifty samples from patients with IBD were included. Quantitative analysis was performed using the ANOVA test for repeated measures, Deming regression and the Bland-Altman plot. Clinical implications were evaluated by concordance in classifying patients into therapeutic windows according to the proposed cut-off levels for subtherapeutic (either <5 or <7.5 μg/mL) and supratherapeutic (>12 μg/mL) ranges.

Results

Statistical differences were detected between the QB method and the two ELISA kits, with QB overestimating ADA serum values compared to them. A lack of interchangeability was observed between methods, with greater differences as ADA levels increased. An analysis of a sub-set of samples with ADA values below 9 μg/mL (n = 25) showed that QB fulfilled the criteria to be interchangeable with the LT assay. Concordance for patient classification into ADA therapeutic windows was better for QB vs. LT than for QB vs. PM, with high agreement (>75%) for subtherapeutic levels among the three methods.

Conclusions

Although quantitative differences existed between the rapid method and ELISA kits that hampered their interchangeability, the agreement for identifying patients with subtherapeutic values of ADA was high.