Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab compared to standard clinical treatment with infliximab: study protocol for a randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group, phase IV study (the NOR-DRUM study)

Evaluation of intra- and inter-individual variations in plasma belimumab concentrations in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

In this study, plasma belimumab concentrations were measured over the course of treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients on belimumab therapy, and intra- and interindividual variations in plasma belimumab concentration were evaluated. A single-center prospective study was conducted at Oita University Hospital to evaluate trough plasma concentrations over the course of treatment in 13 SLE patients treated with intravenous belimumab. Plasma belimumab concentrations were measured by a validated ultra-high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry method. The median age of the patients was 40 (interquartile range: 35-51) years and the median weight was 51.8 (47.0-58.1) kg. A mean of 9.4 (range: 1-13) blood samples was collected per patient at routine visits. The mean (± SD) plasma belimumab concentration was 33.4 ± 11.9 μg/mL in the patient with the lowest concentration and 170.0 ± 16.6 μg/mL in the patient with the highest concentration, indicating a 5-fold difference between patients. On the other hand, the within-patient coefficient of variation ranged from 7.1% to 35.7%, showing no large variations. No significant correlation was observed between plasma belimumab concentration and belimumab dose (mg/kg) (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.22, p = .54). Examinations of trough plasma belimumab concentrations over the course of treatment in patients with SLE showed small intraindividual variation but large interindividual variation. Plasma belimumab trough concentration varied widely among patients administered the approved dose.

Best Practice for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab: Position Statement from the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology

BACKGROUND

Infliximab, an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody, has revolutionized the pharmacological management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This position statement critically reviews and examines existing data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab in patients with IMIDs. It provides a practical guide on implementing TDM in current clinical practices and outlines priority areas for future research.

METHODS

The endorsing TDM of Biologics and Pharmacometrics Committees of the International Association of TDM and Clinical Toxicology collaborated to create this position statement.

RESULTS

Accumulating data support the evidence for TDM of infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, with limited investigation in other IMIDs. A universal approach to TDM may not fully realize the benefits of improving therapeutic outcomes. Patients at risk for increased infliximab clearance, particularly with a proactive strategy, stand to gain the most from TDM. Personalized exposure targets based on therapeutic goals, patient phenotype, and infliximab administration route are recommended. Rapid assays and home sampling strategies offer flexibility for point-of-care TDM. Ongoing studies on model-informed precision dosing in inflammatory bowel disease will help assess the additional value of precision dosing software tools. Patient education and empowerment, and electronic health record-integrated TDM solutions will facilitate routine TDM implementation. Although optimization of therapeutic effectiveness is a primary focus, the cost-reducing potential of TDM also merits consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of TDM for infliximab necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, hospital pharmacists, and (quantitative) clinical pharmacologists to ensure an efficient research trajectory.

Towards Personalized Medicine in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, incurable, multisystem, inflammatory disease characterized by synovitis and extra-articular features. Although several advanced therapies targeting inflammatory mechanisms underlying the disease are available, no advanced therapy is universally effective. Therefore, a ceiling of treatment response is currently accepted where no advanced therapy is superior to another. The current challenge for medical research is the discovery and integration of predictive markers of drug response that can be used to personalize medicine so that the patient is started on "the right drug at the right time". This review article summarizes our current understanding of predicting response to anti-rheumatic drugs in RA, obstacles impeding the development of personalized medicine approaches and future research priorities to overcome these barriers.

Clinical consequences of infliximab immunogenicity and the effect of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring: exploratory analyses of the randomised, controlled NOR-DRUM trials

BACKGROUND

Antidrug antibodies to TNF inhibitors might affect clinical outcomes. Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring allows for early detection of antidrug antibodies and might reduce negative clinical consequences. We aimed to explore how antidrug antibodies to the TNF inhibitor infliximab influence treatment outcomes, and to assess the effect of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring.

METHODS

This was a predefined exploratory analysis of data from the randomised, controlled NOR-DRUM trials. The trials were conducted in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology departments at 21 Norwegian hospitals. Adult patients (aged 18-75 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were randomly assigned to proactive therapeutic drug monitoring or standard infliximab dosing in the NOR-DRUM A trial (30-week follow-up) and the NOR-DRUM B trial (52-week follow-up). Antidrug antibodies were assessed with a drug-sensitive assay before each infusion. The outcomes of remission (at week 30), disease worsening (during 52 weeks), infusion reactions, and infliximab discontinuation were assessed according to the presence of antidrug antibodies and use of therapeutic drug monitoring.

FINDINGS

Between March 1, 2017, and Dec 12, 2019, 616 patients were included in the NOR-DRUM trials, of whom 615 had at least one serum infliximab and antidrug antibody assessment and were included in the present analyses. Mean age was 45 years (IQR 32-56), 305 (50%) patients were women, and 310 (50%) patients were men. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 147 (24%) patients. Remission at week 30 occurred in 25 (35%) of 72 patients with antidrug antibodies and 180 (54%) of 335 without antidrug antibodies (risk ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·45-0·86]; p=0·0037). In patients with antidrug antibodies compared with patients without antidrug antibodies, higher rates were found for: disease worsening over 52 weeks (0·76 per person-year vs 0· 35 per person-year, hazard ratio [HR] 2·02 [95% CI 1·33-3·07]; p=0·0009), infusion reactions (0·16 per person-year vs 0·03 per person-year, HR 17·02 [6·98-41·47]; p<0·0001), and infliximab discontinuation (1·00 per person-year vs 0·20 per person-year, HR 6·64 [4·84-9·11]; p<0·0001). These associations were more pronounced in patients with high concentrations of antidrug antibodies than in those with low concentrations of antidrug antibodies. Independent of antibody status, therapeutic drug monitoring was associated with a lower risk of disease worsening (HR 0·41 [0·29-0·59]; p=0·0001) or an infusion reaction (HR 0·30 [0·12-0·73]; p=0·0076), and was associated with an increase in the rate of infliximab discontinuation (HR 1·37 [1·02-1·83]; p=0·037).

INTERPRETATION

In patients where antidrug antibodies were detected, remission was less likely to be reached and sustained, and infusion reaction or discontinuation of infliximab was more likely. Timely detection of antidrug antibodies by proactive therapeutic drug monitoring facilitated treatment decisions that reduced the negative consequences, both regarding infliximab effectiveness and safety. This highlights the role of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in optimising infliximab therapy.

FUNDING

Inter-regional KLINBEFORSK grants and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority grants.

The Combination of Predictive Factors of Pharmacokinetic Origin Associates with Enhanced Disease Control during Treatment of Pediatric Crohn's Disease with Infliximab

Infliximab (IFX) concentrations are a predictive factor (PF) of pharmacokinetic (PK) origin in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD). We evaluated Clearance, another PF of PK origin, either alone or in combination with concentrations. They were evaluated from two cohorts, the first designed to receive standard dosing (n = 37), and the second designed to proactively target therapeutic IFX concentrations (n = 108). Concentrations were measured using homogeneous mobility shift assay. Clearance was estimated using the nonlinear mixed effects methods with Bayesian priors. C-reactive protein-based clinical remission (<3 mg/L in the absence of symptoms) was used for the disease control outcome measure. Longitudinal changes in disease control due to factors including time, IFX concentration, and Clearance were analyzed using repeated event analysis. Change in objective function value (∆OFV) was calculated to compare concentration and Clearance. The results indicated that lower baseline Clearance and proactive dosing associated with enhanced disease control during induction (p < 0.01). Higher IFX concentrations and lower Clearance measured at the second, third, and fourth infusion yielded improved disease control during maintenance (p < 0.032). During maintenance, the association with disease control was better with Clearance than with concentrations (∆OFV = -19.2; p < 0.001), and the combination of both further minimized OFV (p < 0.001) with markedly improved clinical yield in the presence of both PF of PK origin. We conclude that the combination of IFX concentration and Clearance are better predictors of therapeutic outcome compared with either one alone.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Rapid infusion of infliximab biosimilars and the incidence and severity of infusion-related reactions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Infliximab is an anti-tumour necrosis factor agent used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. While the use of infliximab is well established in the treatment of IBD, there are now four recently FDA-approved infliximab biosimilars that are increasingly used due to their cost-benefit for patients, institutions and payors. In addition, shortening the length of infliximab infusions from 120 min (standard infusion) to 60 min or less (rapid infusion) has been shown to safely provide further cost-benefit while also improving patient convenience. The safety of rapid infusions has been well-established for the infliximab reference product, however, there are limited data available regarding the safety of rapid infusions for infliximab biosimilars. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of infusion reactions among patients with IBD receiving rapid infusion of infliximab reference product compared with infliximab biosimilar.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data of patients with a diagnosis of IBD receiving an infliximab reference product or infliximab biosimilar infusion between December 2020 and December 2021. Patient-level variables included demographics, immunomodulator use, IBD-related hospitalization and infliximab trough concentration and antibody levels. Infusion-related variables of interest included total number of infusions, drug, dose, dosing interval, infusion time and use of pre-medications. Infusion-related reactions were defined as safety concerns documented by the administering nurse (anaphylaxis, shortness of breath, hypotension, swelling, rash, pruritus, hives, flushing, chest pain, muscle pain, joint pain, fevers, chills, headache or hypertension) or administration of emergency medications. Fisher's exact test was used to compare reaction rates.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 188 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis, and a total of 1124 infusions were administered during the study period. There were no statistically significant differences among any of the pre-specified outcomes. There were no differences in the incidence of infusion reactions among rapid infusion (60 min) infliximab and infliximab biosimilars (p = 0.863). Additionally, there were no differences in the incidence of infusion reactions among standard infusion (120 min) infliximab and infliximab biosimilars (p = 0.993). Finally, there were no differences among the rate of infusion reactions between rapid infusion of infliximab biosimilars and standard infusion of infliximab biosimilars (p = 0.536). Eight patients experienced safety issues, with three patients requiring emergency medications (1.6% of 188 patients).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Rapid infusions of infliximab biosimilars were not associated with an increase in the incidence of infusion reactions compared with: rapid infusion of infliximab reference product, standard infusion of infliximab biosimilars, or standard infusion of infliximab reference product. This should reassure clinicians that rapid infusions of infliximab biosimilars are safe in clinical practice.

Risk factors for anti-drug antibody formation to infliximab: Secondary analyses of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anti-drug antibodies (ADAb) frequently form early in the treatment course of infliximab and other tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, leading to treatment failure and adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for ADAb in the early phase of infliximab treatment.

METHODS

Patients (n = 410) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who initiated infliximab treatment were included in the 38-week Norwegian Drug Monitoring Trial (NOR-DRUM) A and randomised 1:1 to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) or standard therapy. Serum levels of infliximab and ADAb were measured at each infusion. Possible risk factors for ADAb formation were assessed using logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

ADAb were detected in 78 (19%) patients. A diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (odds ratio [OR], 1.9 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-3.6]) and lifetime smoking (OR, 2.0 [CI 1.1-3.6]) were baseline risk factors, while baseline use of concomitant immunosuppressors (OR, 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.8]) and a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis (SpA) (OR, 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.8]) reduced the risk of ADAb. Higher disease activity during follow-up (OR, 1.1 [CI 1.0-1.1]) and "drug holidays" of more than 11 weeks (OR, 4.1 [CI 1.2-13.8]) increased the risk of ADAb, whereas higher infliximab doses (OR, 0.1 [CI 0.0-0.3) and higher serum infliximab concentrations (OR, 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.8]) reduced the risk of immunogenicity.

CONCLUSION

Several risk factors for ADAb formation during early-phase infliximab treatment were identified. This knowledge provides a basis for treatment strategies to mitigate the formation of ADAb and identify patients in whom these measures are of particular importance.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

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.

Flare-up of generalized pustular psoriasis combined with systemic capillary leak syndrome after coronavirus disease 2019 mRNA vaccination

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is characterized by acute flare-ups induced by various factors, but few reports have described GPP onset or flare-up induced by vaccination. To our knowledge, only three such cases following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination have been reported. We herein report a case of GPP flare-up after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. A 65-year-old man with GPP controlled by infliximab presented with widespread pustular erythema, fever, and malaise following his second COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. A skin eruption was apparent at the injection site. He also exhibited systemic capillary leak syndrome (SCLS), which responded rapidly to secukinumab and systemic corticosteroids. Two biopsies, one of which was of the injection site, revealed not only findings typical of GPP, but also a dermal mixed-cell infiltration with eosinophils, and microthrombi in the small dermal vessels. The latter findings have been observed in cutaneous lesions induced by both COVID-19 infection and vaccination. This is the first case of a GPP flare-up accompanied by SCLS induced by a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Also, this is the first flare-up induced by the second vaccine dose, and the first such report including detailed histological data, including for the injection site.

Impact of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties of Monoclonal Antibodies in the Management of Psoriasis

The treatment of psoriasis has been revolutionized by the emergence of biological therapies. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) generally have complex pharmacokinetic (PK) properties with nonlinear distribution and elimination. In recent years, several population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models capable of describing different types of mAb have been published. This study aims to summarize the findings of a literature search about population PK/PD modeling and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of mAb in psoriasis. A total of 22 articles corresponding to population PK/PD models of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (adalimumab and golimumab), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab), IL-23/IL-12 inhibitor (ustekinumab), and IL-17 inhibitors (secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab) were collected. A summary of the clinical trials conducted so far in psoriasis was included, together with the current structural population PK and PD models. The most significant and clinical covariates were body weight (BW) and the presence of immunogenicity on clearance (CL). The lack of consensus on PK/PD relationships has prevented establishing an adequate dosage and, therefore, accentuates the need for TDM in psoriasis.

Recent advancements in clearance monitoring of monoclonal antibodies in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

INTRODUCTION

Less than 50% of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) receiving monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy achieve endoscopic remission. Poor outcomes may indicate a need for dose optimization. During therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), drug concentrations are measured, and when found too low, dosage regimen escalations are performed. To date, benefits of TDM of mAbs in patients with IBD are uncertain.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents an overview of what clearance monitoring is, how it can be performed, and why and when it may be valuable in treating patients with IBD. Virtual patients were used for illustration. A literature search was performed to summarize current evidence for clearance monitoring in IBD and other disease settings.

EXPERT OPINION

During clearance monitoring, mAb clearance is calculated and monitored over time. Higher mAb clearance in patients with IBD has been associated with higher target load (target-mediated drug disposition), protein-losing enteropathy (fecal drug loss), and immunogenicity. Although not prospectively confirmed, clearance monitoring might facilitate identification of (yet) asymptomatic disease flares or presence of (yet) undetectable anti-drug antibodies. Furthermore, clearance monitoring may be used to predict treatment outcomes. Whether dosage regimen adjustments can modify the clearance time course and the treatment outcome is to be determined.

iTRAQ and PRM-Based Proteomic Analysis Provides New Insights into Mechanisms of Response to Triple Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background

Approximately 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) respond poorly to combination therapy of multiple drugs. The molecular mechanisms of different responses to methotrexate + leflunomide + infliximab therapy in patients with RA were explored in this study.

Methods

Infliximab was administered to patients with RA whose disease activity score was higher than 5.1 after 1 month of combination therapy with methotrexate and leflunomide. After 14 weeks of undergoing triple therapy, patients with RA were classified as responders and non-responders. Protein profiles at baseline and 14th week were investigated via isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ), and proteins with significant differences ≥1.2 folds change or ≤0.8 folds change were defined as differentially expressed proteins (DEPs). Overlapping DEPs between responders and non-responders were confirmed by parallel reaction monitoring (PRM). Bioinformatic analyses were performed for DEPs.

Results

The results revealed 5 non-responders (NRs) and 15 responders (Rs). iTRAQ analysis indicated 13 overlapping DEPs and included 6 opposite change DEPs such as testicular tissue protein Li 70, cofilin 1, fibrinogen beta chain, galectin-10, serotransferrin (TF) and albumin. The difference in serotransferrin between responders and non-responders confirmed by PRM was significant. Verification by PRM indicated that TF was elevated in the Rs group and was reduced in the NRs group. Bioinformatic analysis indicated that serotransferrin was involved in the hypoxia-inducible factor-1 pathway and ferroptosis.

Conclusion

Serotransferrin-related molecular mechanism may be a new direction to study refractory RA.

Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring vs Standard Therapy During Maintenance Infliximab Therapy on Disease Control in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), consisting of individualized treatment based on scheduled assessments of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an alternative to standard therapy to optimize efficacy and safety of infliximab and other biologic drugs. However, it remains unclear whether proactive TDM improves clinical outcomes during maintenance therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether proactive TDM during maintenance therapy with infliximab improves treatment efficacy by preventing disease worsening compared with standard infliximab therapy without TDM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial including 458 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or psoriasis undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab in 20 Norwegian hospitals. Patients were recruited from June 7, 2017, to December 12, 2019. Final follow-up took place on December 14, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to proactive TDM with dose and interval adjustments based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies (TDM group; n = 228) or to standard infliximab therapy without drug and antibody level monitoring (standard therapy group; n = 230).

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was sustained disease control without disease worsening, defined by disease-specific composite scores or consensus about disease worsening between patient and physician leading to a major change in treatment (switching to another biologic drug, adding an immunosuppressive drug including glucocorticoids, or increasing the infliximab dose), during the 52-week study period.

RESULTS

Among 458 randomized patients (mean age, 44.8 [SD, 14.3] years; 216 women [49.8%]), 454 received their randomly allocated intervention and were included in the full analysis set. The primary outcome of sustained disease control without disease worsening was observed in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group. The estimated adjusted difference was 17.6% (95% CI, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001) favoring TDM. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) and 142 patients (63%) in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab, proactive TDM was more effective than treatment without TDM in sustaining disease control without disease worsening. Further research is needed to compare proactive TDM with reactive TDM, to assess the effects on long-term disease complications, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074656.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease: The dawn of reactive monitoring

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic condition that significantly affects the quality of life of its patients. Biologic drugs have been the mainstay treatment in the management of IBD patients but despite their significant contribution, there remains a proportion of patients that do not respond or lose response to treatment. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) involves measuring levels of serum drug concentrations and anti-drug antibodies. TDM of biologic drugs initially emerged to understand treatment failure in other immune mediated inflammatory diseases. This was then introduced in IBD to rationalize primary non-response or secondary loss of response, given that low serum drug concentrations or the formation of anti-drug antibodies are variably associated with treatment failure. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview regarding the current use of TDM in clinical practice and to present the evidence available regarding its use in both proactive and reactive clinical settings in preventing and managing treatment failure. This review also presents the existing evidence regarding the association of various clinical outcomes with specific thresholds of drug concentrations, in everyday practice. A narrative review of published articles and conference abstracts regarding the use of TDM in IBD management, through an electronic search using PubMed and ScienceDirect. TDM has proven to be superior and more cost effective in guiding management of patients with treatment failure compared to empiric dose escalation or change in treatment. Despite a trend towards an association between clinical outcomes and drug concentrations, proactive TDM based strategies have not been shown to achieve clear benefit in long-term outcomes. In the clinical setting, TDM has proven to be useful in managing IBD patients, and its use in the reactive setting, as an additional tool to help manage patients with treatment failure, is being promoted as newer guidelines and consensus groups implement TDM as part of the management plan.

Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis: modernizing the multidisciplinary approach

Psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are immune-mediated diseases occurring in barrier organs whose main task is to protect the organism from attack. These disorders are highly prevalent especially in northern Europe where psoriasis has a prevalence of around 3-4% and IBD around 0.3%. The prevalence of IBD in North America has been estimated at around 0.4%. The total incidence rates in northern Europe have been estimated at around 6 for Crohn's disease and 11 for ulcerative colitis per 100 000 person-years, compared with an incidence rate of around 280 per 100 000 person-years for psoriasis. Both diseases are less common in countries with a lower index of development. The rise in IBD appears to occur as populations adopt a westernized lifestyle, whereas psoriasis seems more stable and prevalence differences may derive more from variation in genetic susceptibility. The gut microbiota is clearly an important driver of IBD pathogenesis; in psoriasis, changes in gut and skin microbiota have been reported, but it is less clear whether and how these changes contribute to the pathogenesis. Large studies show that most identified genes are involved in the immune system. However, psoriasis and IBD are highly heterogeneous diseases and there is a need for more precise and deeper phenotyping to identify specific subgroups and their genetic, epigenetic and molecular signatures. Epigenetic modifications of DNA such as histone modifications, noncoding RNA effects on transcription and translation and DNA methylation are increasingly recognized as the mechanism underpinning much of the gene-environment interaction in the pathogenesis of both IBD and psoriasis. Our understanding of underlying pathogenetic mechanisms has deepened fundamentally over the past decades developing hand in hand with novel therapies targeting pathways and proinflammatory cytokines incriminated in disease. There is not only substantial overlap between psoriasis and IBD, but also there are differences with implication for therapy. In psoriasis, drugs targeting interleukin-23 and interleukin-17 have shown superior efficacy compared with anti-TNFs, whilst in IBD, drugs targeting interleukin-17 may be less beneficial. The therapeutic toolbox for psoriasis is impressive and is enlarging also for IBD. Still, there are unmet needs reflecting the heterogeneity of both diseases and there is a need for closer molecular diagnostics to allow for the development of precise therapeutics.

Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring vs Standard Therapy During Infliximab Induction on Disease Remission in Patients With Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), defined as individualized drug dosing based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an alternative to standard therapy to maximize efficacy and safety of infliximab and other biological drugs. However, whether proactive TDM improves clinical outcomes when implemented at the time of drug initiation, compared with standard therapy, remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether TDM during initiation of infliximab therapy improves treatment efficacy compared with standard infliximab therapy without TDM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial of 411 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or psoriasis initiating infliximab therapy in 21 hospitals in Norway. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2017, to January 10, 2019. Final follow-up occurred on November 5, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive proactive TDM with dose and interval adjustments based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies (TDM group; n = 207) or standard infliximab therapy without drug and antibody level monitoring (standard therapy group; n = 204).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was clinical remission at week 30.

RESULTS

Among 411 randomized patients (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 14.9] years; 209 women [51%]), 398 (198 in the TDM group and 200 in the standard therapy group) received their randomized intervention and were included in the full analysis set. Clinical remission at week 30 was achieved in 100 (50.5%) of 198 and 106 (53.0%) of 200 patients in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 1.5%; 95% CI, -8.2% to 11.1%; P = .78). Adverse events were reported in 135 patients (68%) and 139 patients (70%) in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases initiating treatment with infliximab, proactive therapeutic drug monitoring, compared with standard therapy, did not significantly improve clinical remission rates over 30 weeks. These findings do not support routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring during infliximab induction for improving disease remission rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074656.

Factors associated with reduced infliximab exposure in the treatment of pediatric autoimmune disorders: a cross-sectional prospective convenience sampling study

BACKGROUND

Inadequate systemic exposure to infliximab (IFX) is associated with treatment failure. This work evaluated factors associated with reduced IFX exposure in children with autoimmune disorders requiring IFX therapy.

METHODS

In this single-center cross-sectional prospective study IFX trough concentrations and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were measured in serum from children diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n = 73), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (n = 16), or uveitis (n = 8) receiving maintenance IFX infusions at an outpatient infusion clinic in a tertiary academic pediatric hospital. IFX concentrations in combination with population pharmacokinetic modeling were used to estimate IFX clearance. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected by chart review and evaluated for their relationship with IFX clearance.

RESULTS

IFX trough concentrations ranged from 0 to > 40 μg/mL and were 3-fold lower in children with IBD compared to children with JIA (p = 0.0002) or uveitis (p = 0.001). Children with IBD were found to receive lower IFX doses with longer dosing intervals, resulting in dose intensities (mg/kg/day) that were 2-fold lower compared to children with JIA (p = 0.0002) or uveitis (p = 0.02). Use of population pharmacokinetic analysis to normalize for variation in dosing practices demonstrated that increased IFX clearance was associated with ADA positivity (p = 0.004), male gender (p = 0.02), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (p = 0.02), elevated c-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.001), reduced serum albumin concentrations (p = 0.0005), and increased disease activity in JIA (p = 0.009) and IBD (p ≤ 0.08). No significant relationship between diagnosis and underlying differences in IFX clearance was observed. Multivariable analysis by covariate population pharmacokinetic modeling confirmed increased IFX clearance to be associated with anti-IFX antibody positivity, increased ESR, and reduced serum albumin concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced IFX clearance is associated with immunogenicity and inflammatory burden across autoimmune disorders. Higher systemic IFX exposures observed in children with rheumatologic disorders are driven primarily by provider drug dose and interval selection, rather than differences in IFX pharmacokinetics across diagnoses. Despite maintenance IFX dosing at or above the standard recommended range for IBD (i.e., 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks), the dosing intensity used in the treatment of IBD is notably lower than dosing intensities used to treat JIA and uveitis, and may place some children with IBD at risk for suboptimal maintenance IFX exposures necessary for treatment response.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Use of Infliximab to Treat Paradoxical Tuberculous Meningitis Reactions

We documented dramatic responses to infliximab in 4 tuberculous meningitis cases with severe paradoxical reactions after effective antibacterial treatment, despite high-dose steroids. In every instance, infliximab was used as a last resort after all other options were exhausted, resulting in delayed initiation that may have adversely affected patient outcomes.

Increased Induction Infliximab Clearance Predicts Early Antidrug Antibody Detection

Treatment of patients with biologics such as infliximab may trigger development of antidrug antibodies, which are associated with faster drug clearance, reduced treatment efficacy, and increased risk of infusion‐related reactions. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of baseline infliximab clearance and early antidrug antibody formation. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models for infliximab were developed using 21 178 observations from 859 patients from the PLANETRA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01217086) and PLANETAS (NCT01220518) studies in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, respectively, to address the specified aims. Infliximab pharmacokinetics were well described by a 2‐compartment model with linear mean estimated baseline clearance of 0.26 L/day. Alongside increased body weight, serum C‐reactive protein, and antidrug antibody concentrations and decreased serum albumin, elevated serum glucose levels predicted higher clearance. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, baseline infliximab clearance and body weight were the only identified predictors of early antidrug antibody detection. The odds ratio for antidrug antibody detection for each 0.1 L/day increase in baseline infliximab clearance was 1.78 (95% confidence interval, 1.50–2.12); for each 10‐kg increase in body weight, this was 1.19 (1.06–1.33). Here we describe increased serum glucose levels as a novel independent predictor of baseline infliximab clearance. Estimates of baseline infliximab clearance should be incorporated to guide dosing modifications and/or antidrug antibody prophylaxis in clinical practice.

Strengthened monitoring and optimized management of Crohn's disease patients

In recent years, the treatment goal of Crohn's disease (CD) has shifted from clinical remission to mucosal healing. In this regard, CD management and monitoring are particularly important. Timely adjustment of treatment regimen according to clinical symptoms and inflammatory markers is helpful to monitor patients and achieve better clinical and endoscopic treatment results. However, there is not enough evidence to recommend an optimal treatment regimen that considers only inflammatory markers. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been used to improve the treatment of thiopurine and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs. Passive TDM is suitable for all drugs. In order to improve the clinical usefulness, the monitoring of anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs should be transformed from passive to active. The effectiveness of active TDM in optimizing non-anti-TNF biologic agents remains to be described. In addition, inflammatory markers can predict CD recurrence after surgery, and regular colonoscopy at 6-12 mo after surgery is also important. Early postoperative anti-TNF therapy should be considered in high-risk CD patients, but the optimal time for prophylactic administration of anti-TNF therapy is still controversial, and the role of non-anti-TNF biologic agents in prophylactic administration after surgery still needs to be studied. This paper mainly summarizes the monitoring of inflammatory markers, drug monitoring, and postoperative monitoring of patients, so as to optimize the management of CD patients and enable more patients to achieve the treatment goal, and emphasizes the importance of close monitoring of CD patients.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in patients on biologics: lessons from gastroenterology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give an overview on the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biologics in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous prospective exposure-response relationship studies and post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show a positive correlation between biologic drug concentrations and favorable clinical outcomes in IBD. These studies also demonstrate that higher drug concentrations appear to be needed to achieve more stringent objective therapeutic outcomes. Reactive TDM rationalizes the management of primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy and is more cost-effective when compared with empiric dose optimization. Furthermore, recent data suggest that proactive TDM, with the goal of targeting a threshold drug concentration, is associated with better therapeutic outcomes when compared with empiric dose escalation and/or reactive TDM of infliximab or adalimumab. Finally, proactive TDM can also efficiently guide infliximab de-escalation or discontinuation in patients with IBD in remission.

SUMMARY

Reactive TDM is currently considered as standard of care, whereas proactive TDM is emerging as a new therapeutic strategy for better optimizing anti-TNF therapy in IBD. However, more data from prospective studies are needed before a wide implementation of TDM-based algorithms in real life clinical practice for newer biologics.