Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Anti-TNF Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

Infliximab and adalimumab are monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) used to manage inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) has been proven to prevent immunogenicity, to achieve better long-term clinical results and to save costs in IBD treatment. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of studies that apply TDM of anti-TNF in IBD and to provide a critical analysis of the best scientific knowledge available in the literature. The quality of the included studies was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Cost-effectiveness of the TDM strategies was presented as total costs, cost savings, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Thirteen studies that examined the health economics of TDM of anti-TNF in IBD from 2013 to 2021 were included. Eight of them (61.5%) achieved a score between 17 and 23 on the CHEERS checklist. The comparison between the TDM strategy and an empirical strategy was cost saving. The ICER between reactive TDM and an empirical strategy was dominated (favorable) by reactive TDM, whereas the ICER value for proactive TDM compared to an empirical strategy ranged from EUR 56,845 to 3,901,554. This systematic review demonstrated that a TDM strategy is cost-effective or cost-saving in IBD.

Comparable Long-Term Outcomes of Cyclosporine and Infliximab in Patients With Steroid-Refractory Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Meta-Analysis

Background: In steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC), cyclosporine (CYS) or infliximab (IFX) may be considered as a second-line alternative to avoid colectomy. There are short-term data reported, but until now, there is no meta-analysis regarding long-term outcomes of CYS and IFX in patients with ASUC.

Aim: To compare long-term efficacy and safety of CYS and IFX in a meta-analysis.

Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies which compared CYS vs. IFX in adults with ASUC. Long-term colectomy-free rate from 1 to 10 years during CYS or IFX therapy was collected, last updated up to 22nd May 2019. Primary outcome was long-term colectomy-free rate, secondary outcomes were adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and mortality. Long-term colectomy-free survival and safety measures were pooled with the random-effect model. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results: Data from 1,607 patients in 15 trials were extracted. In the first 3 years, pooled OR for colectomy-free survival was higher with IFX than with CYS (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11–2.29, p = 0.012; OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14–2.18, p = 0.006; and OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.08–2.84, p = 0.024; at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively). However, the significant difference remained undetected from the fourth year of follow-up and in subgroup of RCTs (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 0.90–2.01, p = 0.143; OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.94–2.12, p = 0.096; and OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.89–2.00, p = 0.157; at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively). No significant difference was detected regarding adverse events, serious adverse events and mortality between the groups. The neutral associations proved to be underpowered with trial sequential analysis.

Conclusion: However observational studies show IFX as a better choice, according to the RCTs, choosing either CYS or IFX as rescue therapy for ASUC, the long-term outcomes are not different, although further large RCTs are warranted.

An approach to acute severe ulcerative colitis

Introduction: Despite the introduction of novel therapies and treatment strategies for ulcerative colitis (UC), many patients develop acute, severe episodes, warranting prompt care and aggressive management. There is a significant unmet need to improve outcomes in these patients. Clinicians must be able to identify those that will have worse prognosis and plan an aggressive therapy with an early/proactive adjustments in management if needed.Areas covered: The aim of this review is to evaluate the most recent evidence on the assessment and management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. We searched the mainstream literature search engines for the most recent evidence on diagnosis and management of acute UC.Expert Opinion: The approach to patients with severe UC includes clinical and endoscopic assessment of disease severity and ruling out over-infections. While intravenous corticosteroids remain the first line therapy for acute severe colitis, many patients do not respond and require escalation to calcineurin inhibitors or infliximab, and may ultimately require colectomy. Even though several novel therapies are available or in development, their role in acute severe episodes of colitis is unknown.

Systematic Review: Efficacy and Safety of Accelerated Induction Regimes in Infliximab Rescue Therapy for Hospitalized Patients with Acute Severe Colitis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic data suggest that standard induction dosing schedules may not be sufficient in patients with acute severe colitis (ASUC). Hence, intensified induction regimes are increasingly used in the rescue treatment of hospitalized patients with ASUC to avoid the need for colectomy although the evidence for this is uncertain.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review of short- and long-term efficacy outcomes from accelerated infliximab induction studies.

METHODS

Systematic search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and relevant conference proceedings (Digestive Diseases Week, European Colitis and Crohn's Organisation Congress, United European Gastroenterology Week) was done.

RESULTS

We identified ten relevant studies with a total of 705 patients, of whom 308 received an intensified infliximab regime. Pooled analysis showed no difference in short-term or long-term colectomy rates in those receiving accelerated induction regimes when compared to standard induction. No significant differences in complication rates were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The available uncontrolled studies so far do not suggest short-term or long-term benefit in using accelerated induction in hospitalized ASUC. The overall poor quality of available studies with confounding variables indicates the need for a randomized controlled trial with personalized risk stratification.