Infliximab Originator, Infliximab Biosimilar, and Adalimumab Are More Effective in Crohn's Disease Than Ulcerative Colitis: A Real-Life Cohort Study

Comparing Point-of-Care Technology to ELISA Testing for Infliximab and Adalimumab Levels in Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Prospective Pilot Study

Introduction: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has proven to be a valuable strategy for optimizing biologic therapies, among which are anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatments in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In particular, reactive TDM has been shown to manage treatment failures more cost-effectively than empirical dose adjustments for anti-TNF drugs. However, several challenges currently impede the widespread adoption of TDM in clinical practice, particularly addressing the delay between sample collection and result availability. To overcome this limitation, the use of point-of-care technology tests (POCTs) is a potential solution. Point-of-care technology tests are medical diagnostic tests performed at the site of patient care to provide immediate results, allowing for quicker decision-making and treatment. The current standard of care (SOC) for drug level measurement relies on the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a method that is time-consuming and requires specialized personnel. This study aims to evaluate a novel, user-friendly, and efficient POCT method (ProciseDx Inc.) and compare its performance with the SOC ELISA in assessing infliximab and adalimumab levels in blood samples from IBD patients. Methods: In this prospective, single-center study, we collected blood samples from IBD patients, both CD and UC, receiving infliximab (87 IBD patients; 50% UC and 50% CD) or adalimumab (60 patients; 14% UC and 48% CD) and we analyzed the blood's drugs levels using both the ProciseDx Analyzer POC and the SOC ELISA. We examined the correlation between the two methods using statistical analyses, including the Deming regression test. Additionally, we assessed the ease of use, turnaround time, and overall practicality of the POCT in a clinical setting. Results: The ProciseDx test demonstrated a strong correlation with the SOC ELISA for measuring both infliximab and adalimumab levels. In particular, the overall correlation between the ProciseDx POCT and the ELISA assessments showed an r coefficient of 0.83 with an R squared value of 0.691 (95% CI 0.717-0.902) for IFX measurements, and an r coefficient of 0.85 with an R squared value of 0.739 (95% CI 0.720-0.930). Conclusions: the ProciseDx POC test offers significantly faster turnaround times and is more straightforward to use, making it a viable alternative for routine clinical monitoring. Despite its promising potential, further refinement and validation of the ProciseDx test are necessary to ensure its effectiveness across diverse patient populations and clinical settings. Future research should focus on optimizing the POC tests' performance and evaluating its long-term impact on IBD management.

Anti-TNFα in inflammatory bowel disease: from originators to biosimilars

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics significantly innovated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment and increased medical costs. The recent expiration of patents of some anti-TNFα biologics (such as infliximab and adalimumab) facilitated the development of biosimilars. Comparable pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles between anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars were demonstrated in different studies. Anti-TNFα biosimilars hold promise for reducing the high cost of biologics and increasing patient access to biologics. In this review, we outline the current data on the use of anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars in patients with IBD, with a focus on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars. The potential benefits, challenges, and future directions of anti-TNFα biosimilars are also discussed in the review.

Effectiveness of adalimumab in severe ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Ulcerative colitis (UC) causes chronic inflammation in the digestive tract, leading to abdominal pain and diarrhea. Adalimumab, a monoclonal antibody, is used to treat moderate to severe cases. This review and meta-analysis evaluated adalimumab's effectiveness for severe UC, considering patient age, disease duration, and gender.

Methods

This study was designed as a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases based on the keywords of adalimumab and UC. The titles, the abstracts, and, if necessary, the full texts of the articles were read. Then for further review, the full texts of the related articles were carefully examined, and the final articles were selected. Seventy-eight articles were searched based on the keywords, and after reading the articles, 50 articles were related to the topic of the dissertation. The 50 articles were evaluated critically based on a checklist prepared by a statistical consultant and four articles with a score above 70% were selected. In the four articles, the main indicators of the effectiveness of adalimumab, including mucosal healing, clinical remission, and clinical response, were evaluated.

Results

The effectiveness of adalimumab on the mucosal healing index was 75.40%, the clinical remission index was 70.79%, and the clinical response index was 83.02%, based on different doses and treatment durations in the study. In the four meta-analysis studies on adalimumab's effectiveness, 1613 UC patients were treated with varying doses over 8 and 52 weeks. Based on a meta-analysis over 8 and 52 weeks for treating moderate to severe UC, adalimumab's effectiveness was 70%-83%. The highest effectiveness, based on three main indices, was with a 40 mg dose over 52 weeks.

Conclusion

According to the meta-analysis, the effectiveness of adalimumab for treating moderate to severe UC over 8 and 52 weeks was 70%-83%. The highest effectiveness, based on three main indices, was with a 40 mg dose over 52 weeks.

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of CT-P13 Between Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare trough infliximab levels and the development of antidrug antibody (ADA) for 1 year between Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who were biologic-naive, and to evaluate their impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Biologic-naive patients with moderate to severe CD or UC who started CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, therapy were enrolled. Trough drug and ADA levels were measured periodically for 1 year after CT-P13 initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients who received CT-P13 treatment were included (CD 168, UC 99). The rates of clinical remission (72% vs. 32.3%, P <0.001) at week 54 were significantly higher in CD than in UC. The median trough drug level (μg/mL) was significantly higher in CD than in UC up to week 14 (week 2, 18.7 vs. 14.7, P <0.001; week 6, 12.5 vs. 8.6, P <0.001; week 14, 3.4 vs. 2.5, P =0.001). The median ADA level (AU/mL) was significantly lower in CD than in UC at week 2 (6.3 vs. 6.5, P =0.046), week 30 (7.9 vs. 11.8, P =0.007), and week 54 (9.3 vs. 12.3, P =0.032). Development of ADA at week 2 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.15, P =0.026], initial C-reactive protein level (aOR=0.87, P =0.032), and CD over UC (aOR=1.92, P <0.001) were independent predictors of clinical remission at week 54.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab shows more favorable pharmacokinetics, including high drug trough and low ADA levels, in CD than in UC, which might result in better clinical outcomes for 1-year infliximab treatment in CD patients.

Dose Escalation Patterns of Advanced Therapies in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalation is one of the treatment approaches studied and suggested in advanced therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to identify and characterize the dosing escalation patterns of advanced therapies in CD and UC.

METHODS

Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2011 and October 2021 and limited to non-interventional studies in English language. Congress and bibliographic searches were also conducted. Articles were screened by two independent researchers. Dose escalation patterns were described and summarized considering the regional regulatory label recommendation (in North America [NA] or outside of North America [ONA]).

RESULTS

Among 3190 CD and 2116 UC articles identified in the Ovid searches, 100 CD and 54 UC studies were included in the SLR, with more studies conducted ONA. Most studies reported an initial maintenance dose pattern aligned with the lower starting dose per local regulatory label; however, several ONA studies (n = 13 out of 14) reported ustekinumab every 8 weeks as starting maintenance pattern in CD. In ONA studies, the median within-guideline escalation rates in CD and UC were 43% in ustekinumab (CD only), 33% and 32% for vedolizumab; 29% and 39% for adalimumab; and 14% and 10% for infliximab. Evidence regarding dose escalation patterns for tofacitinib, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab was limited. Some dose escalation patterns outside of label recommendations were observed including ustekinumab every 8 weeks to every 4 weeks and vedolizumab every 8 weeks to every 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation strategies are widely documented in the literature. The reported dose escalation patterns and escalation rates vary by region and by CD and UC. Most escalation patterns reported were aligned with regulatory recommendations while some reported more diverse or aggressive dose escalation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021289251.

Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Evidence on Dose Escalation and Treatment Switching in Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Currently approved biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis have well-established efficacy. However, many patients fail to respond or lose response, leading to dose escalation or treatment switching.

Objective

We sought to identify real-world evidence on dose escalation and treatment switching and associated clinical and economic outcomes among adults with ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or tofacitinib.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE (up to 26 August 2020), and conference proceedings (2017-2020) for studies in adults with ulcerative colitis to assess clinical response and remission, colectomy, adverse events, and economic outcomes related to dose escalation and treatment switching.

Results

In 56 studies, dose escalation and treatment switching involving infliximab and/or adalimumab were most frequently investigated. Rates of clinical response after dose escalation were 20-95% (1.8-36 months), clinical remission rates were 10-94% (1.8-36 months), colectomy rates were 0-33% (12-38 months), and adverse event rates were 0-18%. Treatment switching rates in 21 studies were 4-70% over 3-62 months, with switch due to loss of response rates of 4-35% over 12-62 months (7 studies). Up to 35% of patients underwent colectomy 12-120 weeks after switching, and 13-38% experienced adverse events. Data relating to economic outcomes were limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, but demonstrated increased direct costs associated with both dose escalation and treatment switching.

Conclusion

Dose escalation and treatment switching are common with existing therapies. However, clinical response and remission rates vary, and a proportion of patients fail to achieve optimal clinical and economic outcomes. This highlights the need for more efficacious and durable treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

Serum oncostatin M predicts mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with anti-TNF, but not vedolizumab

BACKGROUND

Oncostatin M was recently highlighted as a promising biomarker for therapeutic effectiveness in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), with particular regard for infliximab. The primary aim was to evaluate the ability of serum oncostatin M to predict endoscopic response to different drugs in IBD.

METHODS

We selected two different cohorts of patients with IBD, treated with anti-TNF (infliximab and adalimumab) or with vedolizumab. Therapeutic response was evaluated at week 54 in terms of mucosal healing. Serum oncostatin M and C-reactive protein were measured at baseline; fecal calprotectin was measured at baseline and after 14 weeks of treatment. We evaluated the association of these biomarkers with mucosal healing at week 54.

RESULTS

Among 66 patients treated with anti-TNFs and 68 treated with vedolizumab, 35 and 31 attained mucosal healing, respectively. Mucosal healing at 54 weeks was significantly associated with low oncostatin M levels at baseline in the anti-TNF cohort; the diagnostic accuracy of oncostatin M at baseline in predicting mucosal healing was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99) in the anti-TNF cohort and 0.56 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.70, P < 0.001) in the vedolizumab cohort. Mucosal healing was also associated with low fecal calprotectin levels at week 14 in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that serum oncostatin M is a drug-specific biomarker, since it could be used to predict therapeutic effectiveness to anti-TNFs but not to vedolizumab. Moreover, these results emphasize the utility of serum oncostatin M measurement in patients treated with anti-TNF.

Eriodictyol attenuates TNBS-induced ulcerative colitis through repressing TLR4/NF-kB signaling pathway in rats

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease characterized by mucosal and submucosal inflammation, which has a low cure rate and is prone to relapse, due to the immune imbalance of the body. Inhibition of inflammation-related pathways can delay the progression of UC. Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) pathway is considered to be one of the important signaling pathways involved in colon inflammation. Eriodictyol (EDT) is a natural flavonoid widely distributed in foodborne plants. EDT plays an important role in the regulation of inflammation and related signaling pathways. However, whether EDT plays a role in UC remains unknown. Herein, we established a TNBS induced animal model of enteritis in Wistar rats. Our data confirmed the establishment of TNBS induced animal model of enteritis and the administration Eriodictyol in Wistar rats. EDT treatment alleviated TNBS-induced intestinal tissue injury in rats. We further found that EDT reduced MPO expression and regulated the cytokine parameters in TNBS-induced intestinal tissues of rats. The levels of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, IL-2, and IL-12 were also affected by the treatment of EDT. EDT also affected SOD, CAT, GSH-Px, and MDA level in rats with colitis. Moreover, EDT regulated TNBS-induced TLR4/NF-κB pathway activation, therefore inhibiting the progression of UC. Our results suggest that EDT could be a potential therapeutic agent for UC.

Incidence comparison of adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving different biologic agents: retrospective long-term evaluation

Background/Aims

Current literature is lacking in studies comparing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VDZ) in a real-life scenario. Therefore, our primary aim was to compare the AEs occurring in patients taking ADA to those of patients taking VDZ.

Methods

In this single center study, data on AEs from IBD patients who underwent treatment with ADA and VDZ were retrospectively collected. AE rates per 100 person-years were calculated. A Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios of the AEs between the 2 drugs.

Results

A total of 16 ADA patients (17.2%) and 11 VDZ patients (7.6%) had AEs causing drug interruption during the study period (P=0.02). Most of the AEs were noninfectious extraintestinal events (50% in ADA and 54.5% in VDZ) while infections accounted for 31.2% of the AEs in patients treated with ADA and 27.3% in those treated with VDZ. The incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of therapy was 13.2 per 100 person-years for ADA and 5.3 per 100 person-years for VDZ, corresponding to a 76% lower risk in patients in VDZ. Considering the first year of treatment, we observed 34 subjects treated with ADA (36.5%) having at least 1 AEs and 57 (39.3%) among those taking VDZ (P=0.67).

Conclusions

VDZ has a lower incidence rate of AEs causing withdrawal of treatment compared to ADA but a similar risk of AEs not causing drug interruption. Real-life head-to-head studies are still necessary to further explore the safety profile of these drugs.

Hospitalisation for Drug Infusion Did Not Increase Levels of Anxiety and the Risk of Disease Relapse in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease during COVID-19 Outbreak

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, immunomodulatory therapies and hospital admission were suspected to increase the risk of infection. Nevertheless, patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with intravenous (i.v.) biologics had to move to hospitals for drug infusion. We investigated the impact of hospitalisation in patients with IBD. We conducted a survey including consecutive IBD patients initially in clinical and biochemical remission treated with biologics at the end of the first lockdown period. Patients underwent the normally scheduled clinical visits, performed at hospital for i.v.-treated patients or at home for patients treated with s.c. drugs. We administered to all patients the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire and other 12 questions, specifically related to COVID-19 and its implications. A total of 189 IBD patients were recruited, 112 (59.3%) treated with i.v. drugs and 77 (40.7%) with s.c. ones. No relapses were recorded in either group (hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized, p = ns), as well as which, COVID-19 infections were not demonstrated in patients in contact with people with suspected symptoms or directly experiencing them. The total HADS score obtained by the sum of all items was also almost identical between groups (37.1 ± 2.8 vs. 37.2 ± 2.8; p = 0.98). In patients treated with i.v. drugs receiving a televisit (n = 17), the rate of satisfaction with telemedicine (58.8%) was significantly lower compared with those treated with s.c. drugs (94.8%; p < 0.0005). Our results suggest that hospitalisation during the COVID-19 outbreak does not increase the risk of COVID-19 infection as well as the risk of IBD relapse; moreover, the similar levels of anxiety in both groups could confirm that there is no need to convert patients from i.v. to s.c. therapy.

A propensity score-weighted comparison between adalimumab originator and its biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, in inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter Italian study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab is an effective and safe biological drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Nowadays, several biosimilar agents are available, but data regarding their efficacy and safety in patients with IBD are still lacking. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability between adalimumab originator, ABP501 and SB5 biosimilars in patients with IBD in the short term (after induction and after 6 months of treatment) through a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study.

METHODS

We included 156 patients with IBD, 69 patients with ulcerative colitis and 87 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving ABP501 or SB5 biosimilars from January 2019 to April 2020 for moderate-to-severe disease. For comparison, a group of age- and sex-matched patients treated with adalimumab originator was used. We collected clinical and biochemical data after induction and at 6 months of treatment. Endoscopic data were recorded only at baseline.

RESULTS

Overall, clinical benefit was achieved by 86.4% and 85.3% after induction and at 6 months, respectively, without a statistically significant difference between the three treatment groups (p = 0.68 and p = 0.46). However, after induction, we found significant differences between the two types of the disease (ulcerative colitis or CD, p = 0.004), with a greater clinical benefit achieved by patients with CD. Also, the therapeutic optimization rate between the three drugs was not statistically significant different (p = 0.30). All treatments showed a good safety profile, with only 10 patients who needed to stop therapy because of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars seem to be as effective and safe as the originator in patients with IBD. Surely, they represent a great opportunity to reduce the costs of biological therapies, however larger and longer real-life studies are necessary.

Switching from Infliximab Originator to SB2 Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Multicentric Prospective Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

Current literature still lacks studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of switching from Infliximab originator to SB2 biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBDs). We aimed to verify the ability of SB2 to maintain the clinical and biochemical response induced by originator after switching. As secondary outcome, we aimed to verify safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of SB2 biosimilar compared with its IFX originator.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled all patients who switched from originator to SB2 at three Italian IBD Units from August 2018 to April 2020. We collected clinical and biochemical data at the time of switch (T0), and at the first (T1) and the second (T2) visits after switching (mean time from switching: 135 and 329 days, respectively). In addition, data regarding therapeutic drug monitoring at T0 and T1 were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-five IBD patients (28 with Ulcerative Colitis and 57 with Crohn's Disease) were included in the study. At T1, we observed statistically significant modifications in clinical activity of disease (70 patients were in clinical remission at baseline and 60 at T1 p = 0.02), but not at T2 (p = 0.3). Fecal calprotectin values were not different both at T1 and T2 (both p = 0.9) as well as the rate of concomitant treatment with steroids (p = 0.2 and p = 0.1) or immunosuppressants (p = 0.1 and p = 1.0). Moreover, the need for therapeutic optimization from T0 to T1 and from T1 to T2 was found significant (both p = 0.01). No anti-drug antibodies were identified at T1, and no serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our data show that most of the patients switching from Infliximab originator to SB2 maintain the clinical and biochemical remission for at least 1 year. Further data are necessary to understand the clinical implications of these findings in the long term.

Adalimumab biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, are equally effective and safe as adalimumab originator

To date, data on effectiveness and safety of Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to verify the ability of ABP501 and SB5 to maintain the clinical and biochemical response induced by the ADA originator, after switching to them. We prospectively analyzed data collected from 55 patients with IBD who switched to ABP501, and 25 patients with IBD who switched to SB5, from ADA originator at four IBD Units between 2018 and 2020. In addition, we included an age and sex-matched control group (n = 38) who continued ADA originator for at least two years and who did not switch to a biosimilar drug. Clinical and biochemical data (C-Reactive Protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin (FC)), concomitant steroid and/or immunosuppressant therapy at the time of the switch and after six months were collected. At six months, in the ABP501 group, we did not observe statistically significant modifications in clinical activity of disease (p = 0.09) and FC values (p = 0.90)_. Some patients (n = 8) needed to add steroids at six months after switching (p = 0.01), however the need for optimization was not significant between the two timepoints (p = 0.70). Finally, 14.5% patients stopped therapy after six months. Similarly, in the SB5 group we observed a stability of clinical activity and FC values (p = 0.90 and p = 0.20), and a concomitant statistically significant decrease in CRP (p = 0.03). There were no differences in steroids/immunosuppressants need or optimizing biological therapy in this group. Finally, drug survival curves of patients who switched from originator to ABP501 and those who continued ADA originator were similar (p = 0.20). Overall, biosimilar drugs seem to be as effective and safe as the originator. Further larger and longer studies are mandatory to understand the clinical implications of these findings.

Ciclosporin or Infliximab as Rescue Therapy in Acute Glucorticosteroid-Refractory Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and trial-based meta-analyses, the optimal rescue therapy for patients with acute glucorticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis [UC], to avoid colectomy and improve long-term outcomes, remains unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis examining this issue.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane central register up to June 2020. We included RCTs comparing ciclosporin and infliximab, either with each other or with placebo, in patients with glucorticosteroid-refractory UC.

RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs containing 534 patients [415 in head-to-head trials of ciclosporin vs infliximab]. Risk of colectomy at ≤ 1 month was reduced significantly with both treatments, compared with placebo (relative risk [RR] of colectomy with infliximab vs placebo = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.65, RR with ciclosporin vs placebo = 0.40; 95% CI 0.21-0.77). In terms of colectomy between > 1 month and < 1 year, both drugs ranked equally [P-score 0.75]. Neither treatment was more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of colectomy at ≥ 1 year. Both ciclosporin and infliximab were significantly more efficacious than placebo in achieving a response. Neither treatment was more effective than placebo in inducing remission, nor more likely to cause serious adverse events than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ciclosporin and infliximab were superior to placebo in terms of response to therapy and avoiding colectomy up to 1 year, with no significant differences in efficacy or safety between the two. Ciclosporin remains a valid option to treat refractory UC patients, especially those who do not respond to previous treatment with infliximab, or as a bridge to other biological therapies.