Efficacy of anti-TNF dosing interval lengthening in adolescents and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease in sustained remission (FREE-study): protocol for a partially randomised patient preference trial

Lateral flow test versus enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to measure infliximab trough concentrations: A head-to-head comparison

OBJECTIVES

Infliximab is an antitumour necrosis factor agent used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Measurement of infliximab trough concentrations (C-troughs) are used to optimize drug exposure and improve outcomes. Currently, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used predominantly for this purpose. Novel lateral flow immunoassays provide a rapid result.

METHODS

We collected 100 paired serum samples of adolescents and young adults with IBD, who were treated with infliximab maintenance infusions. C-troughs were measured with the Quantum Blue® lateral flow test (QB) with ELISA. Results were categorized as low-range (mean C-trough ≤5 µg/mL) or high-range (>5 µg/mL). A Bland-Altman plot was created with limits of clinical acceptability set at ≤2 µg/mL for low-range and ≤40% for high-range C-troughs. A concordance matrix was created to evaluate the C-trough-based clinical scenario (whether or not to escalate infliximab) using a cutoff value of 5 µg/mL.

RESULTS

Agreement between QB and ELISA was good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.85). In the low-range, 90% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79-96) of measurements were within the limits of clinical acceptability. In the high-range this was 67% (95% CI: 53-79). QB provided higher results than ELISA. The concordance matrix showed 81% agreement (95% CI: 72-88, κ: 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral flow- and ELISA-based infliximab C-trough measurements were in agreement. The swift establishment of infliximab C-troughs matters for patients experiencing increased disease activity. In the event of a low C-trough, prompt dose escalation can be initiated.

De-escalation of Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapy is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. However due to cost and safety concerns, dose de-escalation strategies after achieving remission have been suggested.

AIM

To critically review available data on dose de-escalation of biologics [or other advanced therapies] in IBD. We will focus on studies evaluating de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially optimised, and also on studies assessing de-escalation from standard dosing.

METHODS

A systematic bibliographic search was performed.

RESULTS

The mean frequency of de-escalation after previous dose intensification [12 studies, 1,474 patients] was 34%. The corresponding frequency of de-escalation from standard dosing [five studies, 3,842 patients] was 4.2%. The relapse rate of IBD following anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially dose-escalated [10 studies, 301 patients] was 30%. The corresponding relapse rate following anti-TNF de-escalation from standard dosing [nine studies, 494 patients] was 38%. The risk of relapse was lower for patients in clinical, biologic, and endoscopic/radiological remission at the time of de-escalation. A role of anti-TNF therapeutic drug monitoring in the decision to dose de-escalate has been demonstrated. In patients relapsing after de-escalation, re-escalation is generally effective. De-escalation is not consistently associated with a better safety profile. The cost-effectiveness of the de-escalation strategy remains uncertain. Finally, there is not enough evidence to recommend dose de-escalation of biologics different from anti-TNFs or small molecules.

CONCLUSIONS

Any consideration for de-escalation of biologic therapy in IBD must be tailored, taking into account the risks and consequences of a flare and patients' preferences.

Efficacy and Safety of Biological Therapies and JAK Inhibitors in Older Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

With the introduction of more and more monoclonal antibodies selectively targeting various mediators of the immune system, together with Janus-Kinase (JAK)-inhibitors with variable affinities towards different JAK subtypes, the available therapeutic options for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have undergone an acceleration in the last five years. On the other hand, the prevalence of IBD patients over 65-years-old is steadily increasing, and, with this, there is a large population of patients that presents more comorbidities, polypharmacy, and, more frequently, frailty compared to younger patients, exposing them to potentially major risks for adverse events deriving from newer therapies, e.g., infections, cardiovascular risks, and malignancies. Unfortunately, pivotal trials for the commercialization of new therapies rarely include older IBD patients, and those with serious comorbidities are virtually excluded. In the present review, we focus on existing literature from pivotal trials and real-world studies, analyzing data on efficacy/effectiveness and safety of newer therapies in older IBD patients with special emphasis on comorbidities and frailty, two distinct but intercorrelated aspects of the older population since age by itself seems to be of minor importance.

Current Role of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Pediatric IBD: A Special Focus on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Treat-to-Target Strategies

In the last two decades, biologicals have become essential in treating children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. TNF-α inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab) are preferentially used. Recent studies suggest that early application of TNF-α inhibitors is beneficial to inducing disease remission and preventing complications such as development of penetrating ulcers and fistulas. However, treatment failure occurs in about one third of pediatric patients. Particularly, children and adolescents differ in drug clearance, emphasizing the importance of pharmacokinetic drug monitoring in the pediatric setting. Here, current data on the choice and effectiveness of biologicals and therapeutic drug monitoring strategies are reviewed.

Evidence-Based Approach to the Discontinuation of Immunomodulators or Biologics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Biologics and immunomodulators are key drugs in the long-term treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, while they may negatively impact patients' quality of life due to concerns of adverse events, need for frequent hospital visits, and medical expenses. The basic concept of drug withdrawal should be based on the risk of relapse and the efficacy of re-treatment. Considering a number of patients may relapse even if treatment is continued, the disadvantage of discontinuation should be recognized not by all relapse after discontinuation, but by the increase in relapse.

SUMMARY

Discontinuation of immunomodulator monotherapy is associated with an increased risk of relapse. However, prolonged remission might be an indication of withdrawal, concerning the long-term adverse effect including lymphoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. When considering discontinuation from combination therapy of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents with immunomodulators, therapeutic drug monitoring may be useful to understand the pharmacokinetic effect. However, recent randomized controlled trials, as well as large-scale observational studies, demonstrated that discontinuation of anti-TNF agents, but not of immunomodulators, resulted in a significantly higher risk of relapse even in deep remission. Therefore, discontinuation of anti-TNF agents should be considered with caution and close monitoring combined with fecal calprotectin may be necessary. On the other hand, evidence of not only short-term relapse rate but of the true long-term influence on the patient's quality of life should be clarified by a multidimensional approach.

KEY MESSAGES

Discontinuation of treatment should be implemented based on shared decision-making with careful interpretation of evidence and the condition.

De-escalation of Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents and Reduction in Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review

Background: The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (non-RCTs). Results: Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis. Conclusion: We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021252977.