Clinical performance of an infliximab rapid quantification assay

Observational Study to Compare Biological Drug Concentration Quantification Techniques and Immunogenicity in Patients with Immune-Mediated Diseases

Measuring biological drugs' trough concentrations and the concentrations of anti-drug antibodies is a valuable practice for treatment optimization. ELISA techniques are the gold standard for biological drug concentration quantification, but new techniques such as chemiluminescence immunoassays present some advantages. The aim of this unicentric prospective observational study is to compare the infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab trough levels and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibodies concentrations obtained when using a chemiluminescent instrument (i-TRACK®, Theradiag, Croissy-Beaubourg, France) and an ELISA instrument (TRITURUS®, Griffols, Barcelona, Spain). Linear regression, Pearson or Spearman tests, Bland-Altman plots and the Cohen kappa test were applied for every sample. The correlation was excellent for both assays in the measurement of all drug concentrations. In general, values were lower when measured using i-TRACK than when using TRITURUS, especially when the values were high. Both techniques proved valuable in clinical practice for monitoring adalimumab and infliximab drug concentration. However, the results were modest for ustekinumab and vedolizumab, so caution is recommended and further research is needed. The limited number of anti-drug antibody-positive samples precluded a comparison between the techniques.

Performance of a New Rapid Point-of-Care Test for Infliximab Levels in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comparison to ELISA

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab levels in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) optimizes patients' treatment. The reference technique is based on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) although point of care (POC) assays are being developed.

AIMS

To assess the performance of a new rapid immunochromatographic POC assay (Promonitor Quick IFX) compared with ELISA technique to measure infliximab levels in patients with IBD.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, unicentric study was performed on capillary blood samples from patients with IBD before infliximab infusion (trough levels). Infliximab levels and anti-infliximab antibodies were measured using the ELISA technique (Promonitor IFX) and the POC assay. Correlation between both techniques was assessed by Pearson's coefficient. Quantitative differences were evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. Samples were stratified according to infliximab therapeutic ranges (< 3 μg/mL, 3-8 μg/mL, and > 8 μg/mL).

RESULTS

A total of 135 experimental samples were assessed. Infliximab levels showed a high correlation between POC and ELISA tests (r = 0.84, P < 0.001). The mean difference between tests was 1.46 μg/mL (P < 0.001), being minimal for concentrations < 8 μg/mL. POC and ELISA assays showed an overall concordance of 87.4%. Most samples were in the same therapeutic range, which lead to equivalent therapeutic decisions. POC and ELISA assays detected the presence of anti-infliximab antibodies in 2.2% and 3.7% of the samples, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

POC assay results in blood samples from patients with IBD were comparable to those obtained with the reference ELISA technique. The POC assay could be considered for routine testing based on its ease of use and rapidity.

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.

Monitoring vedolizumab and ustekinumab drug levels in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: hype or hope?

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) plays a vital role in implementing precision medicine in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and may contribute to increased effectiveness, lower rates of drug toxicity and cost savings. While expert panels advocate the use of reactive TDM for anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, TDM is not yet widely recommended for non-anti TNF biologicals. We provide an overview of the observational evidence of the value of TDM in case of vedolizumab and ustekinumab. We also shed light on obstacles that need to be addressed before establishing wide acceptance of TDM in the field of IBD. In this respect, new analytical techniques and modelling approaches are being developed to further optimize efficacy of TDM and to facilitate general acceptance of this tool in personalizing IBD management.

How, When, and for Whom Should We Perform Therapeutic Drug Monitoring?

The implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the inflammatory bowel disease practice has evolved over the years. In the early days, the focus was merely on measuring and reporting drug concentrations. Later, these concentrations were considered in light of target concentrations that are related to clinical response. This not only allowed passively predicting a patient's future response, but it also triggered physicians and pharmacists to actively use the information to optimize the drug dosage to induce and maintain a clinical response in the future. Although reactive TDM, testing at time of loss of response, is widely accepted in practice, especially for anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies, there are less data for the other monoclonal antibodies belonging to other classes. Besides reactive testing, there is a movement toward proactively adjusting biologic dosing to prevent loss of response, in keeping with the tight control philosophy of inflammatory bowel disease care. This review highlights the various assays available to measure drug concentrations and antidrug antibodies, as well as algorithmic approaches to TDM, the unmet needs and required studies to enable pharmacokinetics principles to be applied in the future.

Laboratory Monitoring of Biological Therapies in Rheumatology: The Role of Immunogenicity

Biological drugs, such as proteins and immunogens, are increasingly used to treat various diseases, including tumors and autoimmune diseases, and biological molecules have almost completely replaced synthetic drugs in rheumatology. Although biological treatments such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs seem to be quite safe, they cause some undesirable effects, such as the onset of infections due to weakening of the immune system. Given the biological nature of these drugs, they might be recognized as extraneous; this would induce an immune reaction that neutralizes their effectiveness or lead to more serious consequences. Laboratories play a pivotal role in appropriate therapeutic management. The aim of this review was to underline the production of anti-drug antibodies during treatment with biological drugs and highlight the role of laboratories in ensuring appropriate use of these drugs.

Barbaloin Attenuates Mucosal Damage in Experimental Models of Rat Colitis by Regulating Inflammation and the AMPK Signaling Pathway

Background

Barbaloin is one of the main medicinal ingredients of aloe vera, which displays various anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptosis properties in several inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. Our study evaluated its efficacy against dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis in rats.

Material/Methods

Ulcerative colitis (UC) rat models were established in vivo, and after barbaloin treatment, body weight and inflammation index were measured. Additionally, the signaling mechanism by which barbaloin protects against UC was investigated using LPS-infected Caco-2 cells.

Results

Barbaloin could significantly reverse UC-induced weight loss and colon injury. Further, it could effectively increase the mRNA expression of IL-4 and IL-10 in colon tissues, while decreasing the expression of IFN-γ, IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced UC-inhibited atresia band 1 (ZO-1), occludin, and E-cadherin, and was also found to activate the AMPK signaling pathway. Additionally, si-RAN-induced knockdown, and overexpression assay showed that barbaloin could inhibit the UC-enhanced MLCK signaling pathway by activating the AMPK signaling pathway.

Conclusions

Barbaloin can effectively inhibit inflammation and reverse epithelial barrier function to protect against UC, possibly via activation of the AMPK signaling pathway.

Appropriate Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Biologic Agents for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely available for biologic therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We reviewed current data and provided expert opinion regarding the clinical utility of TDM for biologic therapies in IBD.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi method to establish consensus. A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding the use of TDM of biologic therapy in IBD and presented to international IBD specialists. Subsequently, 28 statements on the application of TDM in clinical practice were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree) by each of the panellists. Statements were accepted if 80% or more of the participants agreed with a score ≥7. The remaining statements were discussed and revised based on the available evidence followed by a second round of voting.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 24 (86%) statements. For anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, proactive TDM was found to be appropriate after induction and at least once during maintenance therapy, but this was not the case for the other biologics. Reactive TDM was appropriate for all agents both for primary non-response and secondary loss of response. The panellists also agreed on several statements regarding TDM and appropriate drug and anti-drug antibody (ADA) concentration thresholds for biologics in specific clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Consensus was achieved towards the utility of TDM of biologics in IBD, particularly anti-TNF therapies. More data are needed especially on non-anti-TNF biologics to further define optimal drug concentration and ADA thresholds as these can vary depending on the therapeutic outcomes assessed.

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.

Infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy has revolutionized the medical treatment of the inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), Crohn’s disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis. Twenty years ago, infliximab became the first anti-TNF agent approved for IBD. Data from randomized controlled trials, large observational cohort studies, postmarketing registries, and meta-analyses show that infliximab is a very effective treatment for moderate to severe IBD with a good safety profile. Infliximab has been also used to treat pouchitis following an ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) after restorative proctocolectomy and to prevent postoperative recurrence following an ileocolonic resection for CD with good results. Nevertheless, up to 30% of patients show no clinical benefit following induction and up to 50% lose response over time. Both these unwanted outcomes can be largely explained by inadequate drug concentrations and frequently by the development of antibodies to infliximab. Loss of response can be managed efficiently and often prevented by applying therapeutic drug monitoring. Recently, the first biosimilars of infliximab have been approved and are utilized in clinical practice with comparable efficacy and safety with the originator. This review will mainly focus on the efficacy of infliximab in IBD.

Comparison of Point-of-Care and Classical Immunoassays for the Monitoring Infliximab and Antibodies Against Infliximab in IBD

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to assess whether the POC assays to measure infliximab residual trough level in the serum of IBD patients were non-inferior to the ELISA techniques available on the market, and to determine which of them was the most robust. The second is to compare three different ELISA kits for monitoring anti-infliximab antibodies (ATI).

METHODS

The assays were carried out on patients' sera using four ELISA kits from four different suppliers (three with a monoclonal antibody and one polyclonal) and two rapid techniques provided by BÜHLMANN (Quantum Blue^®) and R-Biopharm (Ridaquick) for monitoring infliximab levels. ATI were measured by three ELISA sets (Grifols, Theradiag, and R-Biopharm) which have different positivity limits and different units.

RESULTS

We measured infliximab residual level and ATI in the serum of 90 IBD patients (85 treated with infliximab and five with adalimumab). All of the infliximab assays were very well correlated when analyzed with Spearman nonparametric correlation (0.93 ≤ r ≤ 0.99), and the two POC assays were also excellently correlated (r = 0.98). The ATI monitoring kits revealed a correlation ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 when comparing positive and negative patients. When normalizing the quantitative values between the different ELISA tests (expressed arbitrarily by using multiples of the positivity limits defined by each supplier), the Spearman r coefficient ranged from 0.81 to 0.93.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence allows us to conclude that all of the infliximab monitoring assays correlate well and may be used for IFX monitoring; albeit variations in measured IFX concentration among different assays remain present, these assays could be interchangeable. The ATI monitoring techniques are all capable of detecting ATI-positive patients, but because of the difference in the positivity limits and the measurement units, it is better to follow a patient rate with one definite kit.

SERUM INFLIXIMAB MEASUREMENT IN INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE PATIENTS IN REMISSION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN A MULTICENTRIC BRAZILIAN COHORT

BACKGROUND

Infliximab (IFX) therapeutic drug monitoring is an important tool to guide therapeutic decision in inflammatory bowel disease patients. Currently, there are two methods to measure trough levels of IFX, ELISA assays or rapid tests. Despite that the ELISA assay is the most used method in therapeutic drug monitoring, the results take long to be available for clinical use, and it needs to be performed by trained personnel. In contrary, the results of a rapid test take 20 to 30 minutes to be available and can be performed by non-trained lab personnel.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare a rapid test (QB-IFX) for quantitative determination of IFX level to one ELISA assay in a cohort of inflammatory bowel disease patients.

METHODS

Cross-sectional multicentric study with 49 inflammatory bowel disease patients on maintenance therapy with IFX. Blood samples for IFX serum levels were collected immediately before infusion. IFX serum levels were classified as undetectable, low (<3.0 μg/mL), adequate (3.1-7.0 μg/mL) or high (>7.1 μg/mL). A sensitivity and specificity of each test and a comparison between tests was based on ROC curves.

RESULTS

Thirty-four Crohn's disease patients and 15 ulcerative colitis patients in clinical remission were evaluated. The majority of patients had low or adequate serum levels of IFX. In relation to the serum levels proportions with the two methods, there was no significant difference (P=0.84). The ROC analysis identified a concentration threshold >2.9 μg/mL with the QB-IFX test (area under the ROC, 0.82; P<0.0001, sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 61.9%), and >3.83 μg/mL using the ELISA assay (area under the ROC, 0.96; P<0.0001, sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 92.9%).

CONCLUSION

QB-IFX and ELISA assays to measure IFX levels were comparable. Both methods had accurate sensitivity and specificity to detect undetectable, low and adequate levels, but had showed low specificity for supra therapeutic levels of IFX.