Search

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] are treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapies, of which infliximab [IFX] is most commonly used. Loss of response [LOR] to anti-TNF therapy due to immunogenic failure accounts for 20% of subsequent medical intervention and is defined, using a drug-sensitive assay, as low or undetectable concentration of drug with high titres of anti-drug antibodies [ADAb]. We performed a systematic review to investigate the use of a drug-tolerant assay during both induction and maintenance, to monitor patients treated with anti-TNFs. After the search on PubMed, 90 publications were reviewed. Most ADAb detection methods are drug-sensitive, cannot detect ADAb in the presence of drug, and therefore cannot be used close to drug administration when the drug concentration is too high. To overcome this major limitation, several drug-tolerant techniques have been developed and will be discussed in this review. Using drug-tolerant assays, ADAb against IFX or adalimumab [ADM] can be detected during induction and predict primary non-response or LOR. Drug-sensitive assays do not allow detection of ADAb during the induction phase when IFX or ADM concentration is typically high.

Background and Aims: The treatment of chronic pouchitis remains a challenge due to the paucity of high-quality studies. We aimed to provide guidance for clinicians on the appropriateness of medical and surgical treatments in chronic pouchitis. Methods: Appropriateness of medical and surgical treatments in patients with chronic pouchitis was considered in 16 scenarios incorporating presence/absence of four variables: pouchitis symptoms, response to antibiotics, significant prepouch ileitis, and Crohn’s disease (CD)-like complications (i.e., stricture or fistula). Appropriateness of permanent ileostomy in patients refractory to medical treatments was considered in eight additional scenarios. Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, international IBD expert panelists rated appropriateness of treatments in each scenario on a 1–9 scale. Results: Chronic antibiotic therapy was rated appropriate only in asymptomatic antibiotic-dependent patients with no CD-like complications and inappropriate in all other scenarios. Ileal-release budesonide was rated appropriate in 6/16 scenarios including patients with significant prepouch ileitis but no CD-like complications. Probiotics were considered either inappropriate (14/16) or uncertain (2/16). Biologic therapy was considered appropriate in most scenarios (14/16) and uncertain in situations where significant prepouch ileitis or CD-like complications were absent (2/16). In patients who are refractory to all medications, permanent ileostomy was considered appropriate in all scenarios (7/8) except in asymptomatic patients with no CD-like complications. Conclusions: In the presence of significant prepouch ileitis or CD-like complications, chronic antibiotics and probiotics are inappropriate. Biologics are appropriate in all patients except in asymptomatic patients with no evidence of complications. Permanent ileostomy is appropriate in most medically refractory patients.

Monitoring of anti-drug antibodies in patients on ustekinumab is not routinely recommended in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) due to low rates of immunogenicity. Aim of study: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between anti-drug antibodies detected by a drug-tolerant assay and loss of response (LOR) to therapy in a cohort of patients with IBD being treated with ustekinumab. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study consecutively enrolled all adult patients with moderate to severe active IBD who had at least 2 years of follow-up after ustekinumab was initiated. LOR was defined as CDAI > 220 or HBI > 4 for Crohn’s disease (CD) and partial Mayo subscore > 3 for ulcerative colitis (UC) and with a modification in disease management. Results: Ninety patients were included (78 CD and 12 UC; mean age 37 years). Median levels of anti-ustekinumab antibodies (ATU) were significantly higher in patients with LOR compared to those with ongoing clinical response (15.2 µg/mL-eq CI (7.9–21.5) and 4.7 µg/mL-eq CI (2.1–10.5), respectively; p = 0.04). The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for ATU in predicting LOR was 0.76. The optimal cut-off point for identifying patients with LOR was 9.5 µg/mL-eq with a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 85%. Uni- and multivariate analyses showed that serum ATU ≥ 9.5 µg/mL-eq (hazard ratio (HR) 2.54, 95%CI (1.80–5.93)), p = 0.022, prior vedolizumab (HR 2.78, 95%CI (1.09–3.34), p = 0.019) and prior azathioprine (HR 0.54, 95%CI (0.20–0.76), p = 0.014) exposures were the only factors independently associated with LOR to UST. Conclusion: In our real-life cohort, ATU was identified as an independent predictor of LOR to ustekinumab in patients with IBD.

Reactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is considered the standard of care for optimizing biologics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) including Crohn's disease (CD). Preliminary data show that proactive TDM is associated with positive outcomes in IBD and can be also used to efficiently guide therapeutic decisions in specific clinical scenarios. Higher biological drug concentrations are associated with favorable therapeutic outcomes in specific IBD populations or phenotypes including pediatric CD, perianal fistulizing CD, small bowel CD, and following an ileocolonic resection for CD. Future perspectives of TDM include the use of rapid testing, pharmacogenomics, and pharmacokinetic dashboards toward individualized therapy.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, inflammatory condition that involves the intestinal tract, and can also present with extra-intestinal manifestations (EIM). Choosing the right treatment for IBD is often nuanced and decisions can become even more complicated when a patient presents with or develops a complication of the disease.We aimed to provide an overview of the most common complications of IBD, specifically intestinal and EIM, and summarize the data regarding biologic therapy for treatment of these conditions. A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed and Medline databases to identify studies published in the English language relevant to the broad scope of this review.There are still significant gaps in our understanding of the pathophysiology of IBD and its treatment, especially in regards to complications of the disease. As novel therapies continue to emerge for treatment of IBD, we feel concurrent examination of their impact on intestinal complications and EIM of IBD is important and should be a priority of future research.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is useful for optimizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, TDM in clinical practice is still restricted by long turnaround times between sampling and results and the fact that dosing of mAbs to a target drug concentration is challenging due to high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability at both a population and patient level. Overcoming these barriers may be addressed by point-of-care (POC) assays, model-informed precision dosing (MIPD), and pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics.This review provides an overview of the optimization of TDM of mAbs in IBD including POC testing, MIPD, and pharmacogenetics.Recent advances in sampling, quantification, and support of clinical decisions include POC assays and PK dashboards, which may allow for prompt and precise application of TDM in clinical practice. Future perspectives toward a more personalized implementation of TDM could include the incorporation of pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics to identify subgroups of patients who would benefit more from proactive TDM or combination therapy such as those prone to immunogenicity and/or accelerated drug clearance. However, there are still challenges regarding the implementation of these innovative approaches, and more data from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are needed.

In response to a published national payer survey indicating striking needs for multistakeholder initiatives to increase biosimilar adoption, a focus workgroup meeting joining payers and providers was conducted in December 2019 in Boston, MA. Before the focus group meeting, a survey was sent to health care providers to collect perceptions about barriers to biosimilar adoption and gather input on best potential strategies for addressing these barriers. The focus group panel consisted of 5 managed care pharmacists and 3 physician experts in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, representing large managed care organizations and health care systems in the Boston area. A clinical moderator facilitated discussions between the payers and providers regarding challenges to biosimilar adoption and potential collaborative strategies to overcome these barriers. The focus group participants identified hurdles to biosimilar adoption in 3 major areas: (1) the lack of confidence in biosimilar interchangeability and a need for education about biosimilars, (2) the lack of financial incentives to switch to biosimilars from the reference biologic product, and (3) administrative burdens that impair the prescription of biologics. Learning from their mutual experiences, the focus group participants formulated action plans to address these barriers. The top strategies recommended by the participants included advancing biosimilar education, facilitating administrative processes related to biosimilar prescriptions, and increasing provider reimbursement while reducing cost sharing to patients receiving biosimilars.

Background To demonstrate treatment efficacy in Crohn’s disease (CD), regulatory authorities require that trials include an endoscopic remission/response end point; however, standardized endoscopic assessment of disease activity, such as the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD), is not typically recorded by clinicians in practice or outside of clinical trials. The novel Simplified Endoscopic Mucosal Assessment for Crohn’s Disease (SEMA-CD) was developed to be easy to use in routine clinical practice and as a trial end point. We conducted a study to assess and validate the reliability and feasibility of SEMA-CD as a measure of endoscopic disease activity. Methods Pre- and post-treatment ileocolonoscopy videos of pediatric (n = 36) and adult (n = 74) CD patients from 2 ustekinumab clinical trials were each scored with SEMA-CD by 2 to 3 professional central readers, blinded to clinical history and other video scorings; the correlation between SEMA-CD and SES-CD previously completed during the trials was assessed. Sensitivity to change, inter- and intrarater reliability, and comparative ease of scoring were also assessed. Results The SEMA-CD strongly correlated with SES-CD (Spearman ρ = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.92). Pre- to post-treatment changes in SEMA-CD vs in SES-CD were strongly correlated, and the correlation remained strong between the scores when compared by study population (pediatric, adult), disease severity, and video quality. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were good, and SEMA-CD was rated easier than SES-CD to score 63.0% of the time, although slightly more difficult than SES-CD to score Conclusions The SEMA-CD is reliable, reproducible, sensitive to change, and easy to use in both pediatric and adult patients with CD.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are often treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) medications. Concomitant treatment of IBD with anti-TNFα agents and immunomodulators appears to be associated with an increased risk for lymphoma. Patients who developed lymphoma while on monotherapy with an anti-TNFα agent were identified at three centers. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Five adolescents and young adult patients with pediatric-onset IBD who were treated with infliximab (IFX) without exposure to thiopurines were subsequently diagnosed with lymphoma. Three of the five patients had bone involvement at presentation. Epstein–Barr virus was positive in 2 cases. Median time from diagnosis of IBD and exposure to IFX prior to diagnosis of lymphoma was 5 and 4.3 years, respectively. This case series reports long-term follow-up for young patients with IBD who were treated with IFX monotherapy and developed lymphoma. Three of the five patients had bone involvement. In general, the risk of lymphoma following exposure to anti-TNFα medications alone remains low, but the incidence of primary bone lymphomas in IBD has not been reported. Studies examining longer exposure times may be needed to determine the true lymphoma risk in patients treated with IFX monotherapy.

Biologic therapies have transformed the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, a significant proportion of patients demonstrate primary non-response (PNR) or develop a secondary loss of response (LOR) to these agents. Studies using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) have demonstrated a correlation between drug concentration and improved outcomes and that inadequate drug concentrations may be accountable for a significant proportion of PNR and LOR. This review aims to evaluate the role for high-dose biologic therapy in the treatment of IBD. Several studies have demonstrated an important role for dose optimization of anti-TNF agents to achieve desired therapeutic outcomes. More recently, there is also evidence for dose optimization and empiric dose escalation of vedolizumab and ustekinumab. With anti-TNF agents, dose optimization results in improved therapeutic outcomes by controlling inflammation and reducing immunogenicity. Immunogenicity may play less of a role with vedolizumab and ustekinumab. There is a role for TDM to guide dose optimization of biologics in IBD. Further prospective studies are needed to determine if there is a role for accelerated induction therapy with these agents and to evaluate target trough concentrations for vedolizumab and ustekinumab.

Background As treatments, management strategies, and the role of advanced practice providers (APPs) have evolved in recent years, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation sought to understand the educational and resource needs of clinicians caring for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). The aim of this study was to describe the self-identified IBD knowledge and resource gaps of clinicians to inform the development of future programming. Methods A survey containing 19 questions created by the foundation’s Professional Education Committee, a subset of its National Scientific Advisory Committee, was conducted from September 7, 2018 to October 15, 2018. Responses were included from providers if they were currently seeing any IBD patients in a clinical setting. The foundation distributed the survey by email and various social media channels to encourage a diverse response. The survey included questions on comfort levels around diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with IBD, in addition to preferences and utilization of educational resources. The × 2 test was used to evaluate significant differences among respondents in the various domains surveyed. Results There were 197 eligible responses, of which 75% were from MD/Dos, followed by 25% APN/PA/RN/MSN/PhD/other; and 70% of respondents provide care for adult patients. The amount of time in practice was divided evenly among respondents. Fifty-seven percent of respondents practice in an academic/university setting, and approximately 75% indicated that ≥21% of their practice consisted of patients with IBD. Forty-four percent and 46% of respondents reported access to IBD based mental health providers and social workers in their practice, respectively. Seventy-two percent reported access to radiologists, 69% had access to dietitians, and 62% had access to advance practice providers. The areas of greatest educational need were prescribing medical cannabis (if approved locally) for pain management (62%); caring for patients with prior malignancy (35%); caring for pregnant patients and family planning (33%); caring for elderly patients (30%); and therapy decisions, including use of JAK inhibitors (29%), drug holidays (25%), and use of biosimilars (24%). More than 50% of respondents stated they do not participate in shared decision-making, citing time as the most common limiting factor. The majority of providers cited live education as their preferred learning format, and they wish to earn continuing medical education (CME) hours. Conclusion This survey helped identify current IBD educational needs in our professional community. With a rapidly changing treatment landscape and an increase in the diversity of providers delivering care, additional opportunities to keep abreast of practice changes are critical to providing comprehensive, quality care in IBD. Our survey demonstrated that shared decision-making is underutilized in practice due to a need for resources that aid in its efficient integration into practice. Based on our results, a focus on creating live learning opportunities that offer CME are needed in the areas of therapeutic decision-making and treating IBD in special subsets (eg, prior malignancy, pregnancy, elderly).

Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of colorectal cancer. We sought to assess the comparative efficacy of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) vs high definition white light endoscopy (HDWLE) or dye-spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE) through a meta-analysis and rating the quality of evidence. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed through February 15, 2019. Primary outcomes were number of patients in whom dysplasia was identified and number of dysplastic lesions identified in these patients. We included only randomized control trials (RCTs) and performed meta-analysis using RevMan5.3. Results Of the 3205 studies identified, 11 RCTs were included, with a total of 1328 patients. Per patient analysis, VCE was not statistically different compared with DCE (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI, 0.55–1.08) or HDWLE (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45–1.15). However, per dysplasia analysis, VCE was not statistically different compared with DCE (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47–1.11) and inferior compared with HDWLE (RR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.88). The quality of evidence was moderate in the HDWLE and low to moderate in the DCE studies. Conclusion Based on this meta-analysis, VCE was as good as HDWLE and DCE in identifying dysplasia per patient analysis. However, per dysplasia analysis, VCE was inferior compared with HDWLE and no different from DCE. Further studies need to examine the efficacy of each individual VCE technique.

Despite significant development in the pharmacological treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) along with the evolution of therapeutic targets and treatment strategies, a significant subset of patients still requires surgery during the course of the disease. As IBD patients are frequently exposed to biologics at the time of abdominal and perianal surgery, it is crucial to identify any potential impact of biological agents in the perioperative period. Even though detectable serum concentrations of biologics do not seem to increase postoperative complications after abdominal procedures in IBD, there is increasing evidence on the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in the perioperative setting. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of published studies reporting the association of drug concentrations and postoperative outcomes, postoperative recurrence (POR) after an ileocolonic resection for Crohn’s disease (CD), colectomy rates in ulcerative colitis (UC), and perianal fistulizing CD outcomes in patients treated with biologics. Current data suggest that serum concentrations of biologics are not associated with an increased risk in postoperative complications following abdominal procedures in IBD. Moreover, higher concentrations of anti-TNF agents are associated with a reduction in colectomy rates in UC. Finally, higher serum drug concentrations are associated with reduced rates of POR after ileocolonic resections and increased rates of perianal fistula healing in CD. TDM is being increasingly used to guide clinical decision making with favorable outcomes in many clinical scenarios. However, given the lack of high quality data deriving mostly from retrospective studies, the evidence supporting the systematic application of TDM in the perioperative setting is still inconclusive.

The landscape of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment is rapidly expanding with the development of new therapeutic options.To review the mechanisms of action and the available clinical trial data on emerging drug therapies for IBD.Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane databases were queried up to July 2021 using keywords "inflammatory bowel disease," "IBD," "Crohn's disease," "ulcerative colitis" and "trial," "phase" and "study." In addition, we manually reviewed the grey literature including clinical trial registries and abstracts from major gastroenterology conferences in 2020 and 2021 to include pertinent information.In ulcerative colitis (UC), phase 2b and/or phase 3 studies met primary endpoints for S1P receptor agonists (estrasimod, ozanimod), anti-IL-23 agent (mirikizumab), anti-lymphocyte trafficking agents (ontamalimab, subcutaneous vedolizumab), JAK inhibitors (upadacitinib, filgotinib) and TLR9 agonist (cobitolimod). In Crohn's disease (CD), anti-IL-23 agents (risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab), JAK inhibitors (upadacitinib, filgotinib) and anti-lymphocyte trafficking agents (ontamalimab, etrolizumab) met primary endpoints in randomised controlled clinical trials.Several new IBD drug therapies have positive efficacy and safety data in early clinical trials, and there are several drugs in the therapeutic pipeline. As more treatments for CD and UC are approved for clinical use, research to assess predictors of response to therapy and head-to-head trials is needed to inform providers on how to best position therapeutic options for patients with IBD.

Background With the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) becoming increasingly complex, incorporating preventive care health maintenance measures can be challenging. The aim of developing these updated recommendations is to provide more specific details to facilitate their use into a busy clinical practice setting. Method Fifteen statements were formulated with recommendations regarding the target, timing, and frequency of the health maintenance interventions in patients with IBD. We used a modified Delphi method and a literature review to establish a consensus among the panel of experts. The appropriateness of each health maintenance statement was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1–2 as inappropriate, and 4–5 as appropriate) by each panelist. Interventions were considered appropriate, and statements were accepted if ≥80% of the panelists agreed with a score ≥4. Results The panel approved 15 health maintenance recommendations for adults with IBD based on the current literature and expert opinion. These recommendations include explicit details regarding specific screening tools, timing of screening, and vaccinations for adults with IBD. Conclusions Patients with IBD are at an increased risk for infections, malignancies, and other comorbidities. Given the complexity of caring for patients with IBD, this focused list of recommendations can be easily incorporated in to clinical care to help eliminate the gap in preventative care for patients with IBD.

Antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has revolutionised the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, up to 30% of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) do not respond to anti-TNF therapy, often referred to as primary non-responders. Additionally, almost 50% of patients who initially respond to anti-TNF lose response over time, a phenomenon known as secondary loss of response (SLR).1 Both of these negative outcomes are most commonly caused by pharmacokinetic issues characterised by undetectable or low drug concentrations due to increased clearance with or without the presence of antidrug antibodies (ADA), so-called immunogenicity.2 The recent prospective The Personalised Anti-TNF therapy in Crohn’s Disease Study (PANTS) study showed that for both infliximab and adalimumab, suboptimal week 14 drug concentrations predicted immunogenicity, and the development of ADA predicted subsequent low drug concentrations.3 Immunogenicity may account for at least 20% of SLR in patients with IBD.2 The addition of an immunomodulator (IMM), such as a thiopurine or methotrexate, has been shown to improve the pharmacokinetic profile of anti-TNF agents both by attenuating immunogenicity and increasing drug concentrations.3–5 These factors consequently lead to better long-term clinical outcomes and less SLR.3–5 A post hoc analysis of the Study of Biologic and Immunomodulator naive Patients in Crohn’s Disease (SONIC) randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed that combination therapy with azathioprine appears to …

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is a common disease that can cause chronic gastritis, peptic ulcers, and gastric cancer. Nevertheless, due to its ability to elicit a systemic inflammatory response, it has also been related to several extra-gastric manifestations including endocrine disorders, such as autoimmune thyroid diseases, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and obesity. H. pylori infection has also been linked to osteoporosis, although currently available data are equivocal. This brief review will focus on the possible association between H. pylori infection and osteoporosis, a silent disease characterized by decreased bone mass that can increase the occurrence of fractures, disability, and mortality.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an updated overview on the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biological therapies in IBD. We examine the data behind TDM for the anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, vedolizumab and ustekinumab, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In addition, we discuss reactive vs. proactive TDM. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a positive correlation between biologic drug concentrations and favorable therapeutic outcomes in IBD, although the majority of data refer to anti-TNF therapy. Reactive TDM has rationalized the management of patients with IBD with loss of response to biological therapy. Moreover, reactive TDM of infliximab has been proven to be more cost-effective when compared to empiric dose optimization. Preliminary data suggest that proactive TDM of infliximab and adalimumab applied in patients with clinical response/remission is associated with better therapeutic outcomes compared to standard of care (empiric treatment and/or reactive TDM). SUMMARY: For all biologics in IBD, there is a positive correlation between drug concentrations and favorable therapeutic outcomes. Reactive TDM is the new standard of care for optimizing biologic therapies in IBD, while recent data suggest an important role of proactive TDM for optimizing anti-TNF therapy in IBD.

Background Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is increasingly performed for Infliximab (IFX) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Reactive TDM is a cost-effective strategy to empiric IFX dose escalation. The cost-effectiveness of proactive TDM is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of proactive vs reactive TDM in a simulated population of CD patients on IFX. Methods We developed a stochastic simulation model of CD patients on IFX and evaluated the expected health costs and outcomes of a proactive TDM strategy compared with a reactive strategy. The proactive strategy measured IFX concentration and antibody status every 6 months, or at the time of a flare, and dosed IFX to a therapeutic window. The reactive strategy only did so at the time of a flare. Results The proactive strategy led to fewer flares than the reactive strategy. More patients stayed on IFX in the proactive vs reactive strategy (63.4% vs 58.8% at year 5). From a health sector perspective, a proactive strategy was marginally cost-effective compared with a reactive strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $146,494 per quality-adjusted life year), assuming a 40% of the wholesale price of IFX. The results were most sensitive to risk of flaring with a low IFX concentration and the cost of IFX. Conclusions Assuming 40% of the average wholesale acquisition cost of biologic therapies, proactive TDM for IFX is marginally cost-effective compared with a reactive TDM strategy. As the cost of infliximab decreases, a proactive monitoring strategy is more cost-effective.

In order to identify the practical implications for both health care practitioners and patients in understanding differences between the results of trials assessing therapies for ulcerative colitis [UC], we reviewed clinical trials of therapies for moderate to severe UC, with a focus on trial design. Over time, patient populations in UC trials have become more refractory, reflecting that patients are failing treatment with additional and different classes of drug, including conventional therapies, immunosuppressant drugs, and anti-tumour necrosis factor therapies. Outcomes used to measure efficacy have become increasingly stringent in order to meet the expectations of patients and physicians, and the requirements of regulatory bodies. Trial design has also evolved to integrate induction and maintenance therapy phases, so as to facilitate patient recruitment and to answer clinically important questions such as how efficacious therapies are in specific subpopulations of patients and during long-term use. As UC clinical trial design continues to evolve, and with limited head-to-head trials and real-world comparative effectiveness studies evaluating UC therapies, careful judgment is required to appreciate the differences and similarities in trial designs, and to understand how these variances may affect the observed efficacy and safety outcomes.

Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule inhibitor of JAK for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We evaluated the onset of symptom improvement in post-hoc analyses of data from 2 phase 3 trials of induction therapy with tofacitinib in patients with UC (OCTAVE Induction 1 and 2).The studies comprised patients with moderate to severe active UC who were intolerant to, or failed by previous treatment with, corticosteroids, thiopurines, and/or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists. Patients received tofacitinib (10 mg twice daily, n = 905) or placebo (n = 234) for 8 weeks. Daily Mayo stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores were calculated using diary data from the first 15 days of therapy. We analyzed data from subgroups including failure of prior anti-TNF therapy, baseline corticosteroid use, and baseline serum levels of C-reactive protein.Mean changes were significantly greater in patients given tofacitinib vs placebo in reductions from baseline stool frequency subscore (tofacitinib: -0.27 vs placebo: -0.11; P.01), total number of daily bowel movements (-1.06 vs -0.27; P.0001), and rectal bleeding subscore (-0.30 vs -0.14; P.01) by day 3. Compared with placebo, more tofacitinib-treated patients had reductions from baseline in stool frequency subscore (by ≥1 point for tofacitinib, 241/837, 28.8% vs placebo, 39/218, 17.9%) (P.01) and rectal bleeding subscore (by ≥1 point for tofacitinib, 266/830, 32.0% vs placebo, 43/214, 20.1%) (P.01) by day 3. A consistent effect of tofacitinib was observed in all subgroups.In a post-hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials of induction therapy with tofacitinib in patients with UC, we found significant improvements in symptoms among patients given tofacitinib compared with placebo within 3 days. These findings indicate the rapid onset of effect of this drug in patients with UC. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01465763 and NCT01458951.

CD39 is an ectonucleotidase that initiates conversion of extracellular nucleotides into immunosuppressive adenosine. CD39 is expressed by regulatory T (Treg)-cells, where it mediates immunosuppression, and by a subset of T-helper (Th) 17-cells, where it limits pathogenicity. CD39 is regulated via single-nucleotide-polymorphisms and upon activation of aryl-hydrocarbon-receptor and oxygen-mediated pathways. Here we report a mechanism of CD39 regulation that relies on the presence of an endogenous antisense RNA, transcribed from the 3′-end of the human CD39/ENTPD1 gene. CD39-specific antisense is increased in Treg and Th17-cells of Crohn’s disease patients over controls. It largely localizes in the cell nucleus and regulates CD39 by interacting with nucleolin and heterogeneous-nuclear-ribonucleoprotein-A1. Antisense silencing results in CD39 upregulation in vitro and amelioration of disease activity in a trinitro-benzene-sulfonic-acid model of colitis in humanized NOD/scid/gamma mice. Inhibition/blockade of antisense might represent a therapeutic strategy to restore CD39 along with immunohomeostasis in Crohn’s disease., CD39 is an ectonucleotidase associated with immunoregulatory function. Here authors show regulation of CD39 expression by an endogenous antisense RNA moiety transcribed from the 3‘ end of CD39/ENTPD1 which when itself is silenced results in amelioration of pathology in an animal model of colitis.

Serum vedolizumab concentrations are associated with clinical response although, it is unknown if vedolizumab concentrations predict response to dose escalation. The aim of this study was to identify if vedolizumab trough concentrations predicted the response to vedolizumab dose escalation. We assessed a retrospective cohort of patients on maintenance vedolizumab dosing at five tertiary care centers with vedolizumab trough concentrations. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for potential confounders of association of vedolizumab concentration and clinical status. Those who underwent a dose escalation were further examined to assess if vedolizumab trough concentration predicted the subsequent response. One hundred ninety-two patients were included. On multivariate analysis, vedolizumab trough concentration (p = 0.03) and the use of immunomodulator (p = 0.006) were associated with clinical remission. Receiver operator curve analysis identified a cut off of 7.4 &mu, g/mL for clinical remission. Of the fifty-eight patients with dose escalated, 74% of those with a vedolizumab concentration &lt, 7.4 &mu, g/mL responded versus 52% of those with a vedolizumab trough concentration &ge, g/mL (p = 0.08). After adjustment for relevant confounders, the odds ratio for response with vedolizumab concentration &lt, g/mL was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.1&ndash, 13, p = 0.04). Vedolizumab trough concentration are associated with clinical status and can identify individuals likely to respond to dose escalation. However, a substantial portion of patients above the identified cut off still had a positive response. Vedolizumab trough concentration is a potentially helpful factor in determining the need for dose escalation in patients losing response.

An upward drift for both infliximab and adalimumab concentrations measured by the homogenous mobility shift assay (HMSA) was previously reported. We aimed to investigate the impact of this drift on clinical care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. This was a retrospective, multicenter study. Providers reviewed the individual patient data and drug concentrations before and after the laboratory corrections and then documented whether a different clinical decision would have been made had the corrected drug concentration been originally reported. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to investigate the association of a documented treatment change with treatment failure, defined as drug discontinuation for primary nonresponse, loss of response, or serious adverse event, adjusting for confounding factors. The study population consisted of 479 patients (infliximab, n = 219, adalimumab, n = 260). Upon review, 14.9% (71/479) patients would have had a different treatment decision made had the corrected drug concentration been initially reported. After a median follow-up of 10.6 months, 25.7% of patients (123/479) had treatment failure. A theoretical different clinical decision based on the corrected drug concentrations was not associated with treatment failure (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.452, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.805&ndash, 2.618, p = 0.216), which was consistent for both infliximab (adjusted HR: 1.977, 95% CI: 0.695&ndash, 5.627, p = 0.201) and adalimumab (adjusted HR: 1.484, 95% CI: 0.721&ndash, 3.054, p = 0.284). The drift in infliximab and adalimumab concentrations in the HMSA assay affected treatment decisions in 15% of cases. However, this discrepancy was not associated with a higher cumulative probability for treatment failure.

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.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are often treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) medications. Concomitant treatment of IBD with anti-TNFα agents and immunomodulators appears to be associated with an increased risk for lymphoma.Patients who developed lymphoma while on monotherapy with an anti-TNFα agent were identified at three centers. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.Five adolescents and young adult patients with pediatric-onset IBD who were treated with infliximab (IFX) without exposure to thiopurines were subsequently diagnosed with lymphoma. Three of the five patients had bone involvement at presentation. Epstein-Barr virus was positive in 2 cases. Median time from diagnosis of IBD and exposure to IFX prior to diagnosis of lymphoma was 5 and 4.3 years, respectively.This case series reports long-term follow-up for young patients with IBD who were treated with IFX monotherapy and developed lymphoma. Three of the five patients had bone involvement. In general, the risk of lymphoma following exposure to anti-TNFα medications alone remains low, but the incidence of primary bone lymphomas in IBD has not been reported. Studies examining longer exposure times may be needed to determine the true lymphoma risk in patients treated with IFX monotherapy.

Comparison data regarding anti-tumor necrosis factor drug concentrations in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) between the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the homogenous mobility shift assay (HMSA) are scarce.1-3 As decisions in clinical practice depend on the thresholds that define a therapeutic drug concentration, it is important to determine if this varies based on the type of assay used for therapeutic drug monitoring.4 We recently showed a discrepancy between a commercially available ELISA and the HMSA for both infliximab and adalimumab concentrations in patients with IBD.5 Based on the results of the study, Prometheus Laboratories (San Diego, CA) initiated a comprehensive review of their HMSA assays and found that there was an upward drift for both infliximab (from December 2017 to May 2019) and adalimumab (from August 2017 to May 2019), including when our study was performed. Prometheus Laboratories corrected the errant values and reported the revised drug concentrations to physicians (Supplementary Methods). We aimed to compare the corrected infliximab and adalimumab concentrations with the original ELISA values.

The management of patients with moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease was transformed with the arrival of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. Nevertheless, a considerable number of patients do not respond to anti-TNF induction therapy (primary nonresponse) or lose response to treatment over time after initially experiencing clinical improvement (secondary loss of response). Studies suggest that these outcomes are often due to inadequate drug concentrations. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a practical tool that can be used to better define the etiologies of and help manage primary nonresponse or secondary loss of response. Proactive TDM, or drug titration to a target trough concentration, can improve the efficacy of anti-TNF treatment and lead to favorable clinical outcomes. However, in patients with adequate anti-TNF drug concentrations and active disease, alternate pathways of inflammation (not driven by TNFa agents) are at play, and therapies with another mechanism of action should be employed.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with measurement of serum drug and antidrug antibodies (ADAb) is used widely to confirm therapeutic exposure, rule out immunogenicity, and optimize treatment of biologics in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.1 A recent genome-wide association study found the variant HLA-DQA1∗05 to increase the risk of development of antibodies against infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADM) 2-fold, regardless of concomitant immunomodulator use.2,3 However, there is currently limited evidence showing whether patients who develop antibodies to 1 anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) are prone to develop antibodies to the subsequent anti-TNF. Our aim was to investigate the risk of subsequent antibody development in cases (with ADAb to prior anti-TNF) versus control subjects (without ADAb to prior anti-TNF) using a large cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases who underwent TDM with a drug-tolerant assay.

Anti-TNF agents are widely used to treat immune-mediated disorders. Reactivation of Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is associated with immunosuppressive agents and biologics such as anti-TNF. There are limited data and differing guidelines for patients with negative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg-) but positive antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc+) on anti-TNF with regards to outcomes and need for anti-viral prophylaxis. We examined the prevalence of HBV reactivation in a single-center retrospective cohort study of 120 HBsAg-, anti-HBc+ patients on anti-TNF, totaling 346.6 patient years. One patient (0.8%) who had a detectable VL (20 IU) prior to starting anti-TNF had reactivation of HBV with sero-conversion to positive HBsAg. Three patients (2.5%) had undetectable HBV VL prior to anti-TNF and developed detectable VL while on anti-TNF. In conclusion, there was a low rate of HBV reactivation or development of detectable HBV DNA in HBsAg-, anti-HBc+ patients on anti-TNF.

Background and Aims Reactive testing has emerged as the new standard of care for managing loss of response to infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. Recent data suggest that proactive infliximab monitoring is associated with better therapeutic outcomes in IBD. Nevertheless, there are no data regarding the clinical utility of proactive infliximab monitoring after first reactive testing. We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of proactive infliximab monitoring following reactive testing compared with reactive testing alone in patients with IBD. Methods This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive IBD patients on infliximab maintenance therapy receiving a first reactive testing between September 2006 and January 2015. Patients were divided into two groups; Group A [proactive infliximab monitoring after reactive testing] and Group B [reactive testing alone]. Patients were followed through December 2015. Time-to-event analysis for treatment failure and IBD-related surgery and hospitalization was performed. Treatment failure was defined as drug discontinuation due to either loss of response or serious adverse event. Results The study population consisted of 102 [n = 70, 69% with CD] patients [Group A, n = 33 and Group B, n = 69] who were followed for (median, interquartile range [IQR]) 2.7 [1.4–3.8] years. Multiple Cox regression analysis identified proactive following reactive TDM as independently associated with less treatment failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05–0.51; p = 0.002) and fewer IBD-related hospitalizations [HR: 0.18; 95% CI 0.05–0.99; p = 0.007]. Conclusions This study showed that proactive infliximab monitoring following reactive testing was associated with greater drug persistence and fewer IBD-related hospitalizations than reactive testing alone.