Tag Archives: adalimumab

Durability of Biologics in Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by
1

JL Kaplan et al. JPGN 2023; 76: 567-575. Open Access! Use, Durability, and Risks for Discontinuation of Initial and Subsequent Biologics in a Large Pediatric-Onset IBD Cohort

Methods: The authors analyzed pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) data from the ImproveCareNow Network registry (n= 17,649) between May 2006 and September 2016, including time to biologic initiation, choice of first subsequent biologics, biologic durability, and reasons for discontinuation

Key findings:

  • 7585 (43%) were treated with a biologic agent before age 18. 50% of children with Crohn’s disease (CD) received a biologic compared to 25% of children with ulcerative colitis (UC)
  • First biologic agents for all patients were anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (88% infliximab, 12% adalimumab)
  • Probability of remaining on first biologic in patients with CD: 93% at 6 months, 85% at 12 months, 79% at 24 months, and 74% at 36 months
  • Probability of remaining on first biologic in patients with UC: 84% at 6 months, 75% at 12 months, 66% at 24 months, and 55% at 36 months
  • First biologics were discontinued because of loss of response (39%), intolerance (23%), and nonresponse (19%).

My take: This is an important study that shows that anti-TNF therapy durability was 79% in patients with CD and 66% in patients with UC at 2 years. This pediatric-specific information will help with counseling families when starting biologic therapy. There was improvement in durability after 2013 compared to prior -so perhaps perhaps even better durability is occurring in 2023. It is a little ironic that this study is from ImproveCareNow given that the results are quite dated. There have been a lot of changes in the last seven years. These include the widespread use of dose optimization/therapeutic drug levels and the approval of several new classes of targeted medications.

Related blog posts:

Tucson Botanical Gardens

Is There An Increased Risk of Infections with Anti-TNF Therapy?

Posted on by

J Holmgren et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2023; 29: 339-348. Open Access! The Risk of Serious Infections Before and After Anti-TNF Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study 

Methods: Retrospective study with 980 patients at 5 centers participating in the Swedish IBD Quality Register. Serious infections, defined as infections requiring in-patient care, the year before and after the start of anti-TNF treatment were evaluated.

A decline in the incidence rate can first be seen beyond 1 year of treatment with anti-TNF, with an incidence rate of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.90-1.66) events per 100 person year compared with 2.19 (95% CI, 1.43-3.36) events per 100 person year the year before treatment. This is a significant reduction of infections, with an incidence rate ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33-0.95; P = .030).

Key findings:

  • A 72.0% reduction in the incidence rate of perianal abscesses and intra-abdominal abscesses during treatment with anti-TNF was found compared with before treatment.
  • Figures 2 & 3 show than most infection rates decreased with treatment. CMV infection did not change significantly with 0.10 per 100 person-years prior to treatment and 0.14 per 100 person-years after starting anti-TNF therapy
  • ” In the current study, patients younger than 20 years old experienced a substantial decrease of infection incidence rate ratio (0.11) with the introduction of anti-TNF treatment. The results could be explained by the fact that young patients have a more active disease with increased risk of infection before treatment with anti-TNF.”
  • “The most common type of infection after anti-TNF treatment was pneumonia. The high incidence of pneumonia confirms earlier data.9,36,37” However, the authors show that the rate of pneumonia dropped from 0.51 to 0.27 per 100 person-years after starting anti-TNF therapy.

The authors note that a prior study by “Zabana et al showed that patients with IBD had an increased risk for serious infection after starting immunosuppressive treatment compared with before treatment (median follow-up 3 years before and 5 years after)… the discrepancy in the result may be explained by selection bias. We included all patients starting anti-TNF treatment. However, Zabana et al included only patients who suffered from infections during immunosuppressive treatment and retrospectively examined the risk of infection before start of treatment.24“

Limitations of study: several other important factors affecting infections were not captured in this study including steroid exposure and nutritional status.

My take (from authors): “The incidence rate of serious infection among IBD patients did not increase with anti-TNF therapy. Instead, serious infections seemed to decrease more than 1 year after initiation of anti-TNF treatment.”

Related blog posts:

Poster Child for Gaming Pharmaceutical Regulations: Humira

Posted on by

NY Times 1/29/23): How a Drug Company Made $114 Billion by Gaming the U.S. Patent System “AbbVie for years delayed competition for its blockbuster drug Humira, at the expense of patients and taxpayers. The monopoly is about to end.”

This article details how AbbVie has perfected the use of patent protections to extend its monopoly over adalimumab; this has been to the detriment of many patients , employers and taxpayers who bear the additional costs. Key points:

  • In 2016, a blockbuster drug called Humira was poised to become a lot less valuable. The key patent on the best-selling anti-inflammatory medication, used to treat conditions like arthritis, was expiring at the end of the year…Through its savvy but legal exploitation of the U.S. patent system, Humira’s manufacturer, AbbVie, blocked competitors from entering the market.
  • Since the end of 2016, the drug’s list price has gone up 60 percent to over $80,000 a year, according to SSR Health, a research firm.
  • Patents are good for 20 years after an application is filed. Because they protect patent holders’ right to profit off their inventions, they are supposed to incentivize the expensive risk-taking that sometimes yields breakthrough innovations. But drug companies have turned patents into weapons to thwart competition. AbbVie and its affiliates have applied for 311 patents, of which 165 have been granted, related to Humira, according to the Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge, which tracks drug patents. A vast majority were filed after Humira was on the market.
  • The article notes that one employer has been flying a patient receiving Humira to the Bahamas to pick up her medication.
  • AbbVie … will have a new way to make more money from the drug. Under the terms of the legal settlements… AbbVie will earn royalties from the knockoff products that it delayed.
  • In the longer run, though, AbbVie’s success with Humira may boomerang on the drug industry. Last year, the company’s tactics became a rallying cry for federal lawmakers as they successfully pushed for Medicare to have greater control over the price of widely used drugs that, like Humira, have been on the market for many years but still lack competition.

My take: It makes me mad when I read this article. First of all, there are a lot of patients harmed by this gaming. Second, it is outrageous that the cost of this expensive medication was raised 60% over the last 6 years (and going up 8% more in 2023). Third, I am disappointed to learn that AbbVie will still make money off biosimilars because I am looking forward to NOT using Humira because of these tactics. Lastly, I hope that this does prompt legislative/regulatory changes to limit this practice going forward.

Related article: USA Today (1/30/23) Why drugmakers have raised prices on nearly 1,000 drugs so far this year Average medication increase for 2023 is 5%. “Nearly half of new drugs cost $150 000 per year in 2020 and 2021. Fewer than 10% of new drugs launched at that price in 2008.”

Related blog posts:

Picking Apart the SERENE-CD Study & Constipation Vibrating Capsule FDA Approved

Posted on by

Several recent letters to the editor provide some insight into some of the shortcomings of the SERENE-CD study which reported that higher adalimumab induction dosing and proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) were not associated with improved outcomes.

“The rerandomization design of SERENE CD, which selectively enrolled patients with clinical response at week 12 to the TDM vs CA part of the study, may have resulted in the exclusion of those who would have benefited the most from early adjustment of their anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) dose. The rerandomization design and the late adaptation of the proactive strategy at week 12 were 2 significant aspects of the design that may have led to the negative results. On the other hand, PAILOT, which showed beneficial effects of proactive TDM, randomized patients as early as week 4 and assessed the outcome at week 72. This is distinct from the 1-year time frame used in most other studies, including SERENE CD.8 A properly designed, adequately powered clinical trial is needed before we can make a judgement on the use of proactive TDM in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Until then, the jury remains out.”

“The study design only allowed patients in the TDM group with adalimumab concentrations of ≥5 and ≤10 μg/mL to be escalated to 40 mg every week if their CD activity index was ≥220 or their high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level was ≥10 mg/L.. The goal of proactive TDM is to attain a threshold concentration regardless of disease activity. This design probably led the 2 groups to have similar drug concentrations at week 56…

Second, a rather low targeted drug concentration of 5 μg/mL was used, although previous studies have suggested that higher concentrations are more appropriate.5, 6, 7, 8 A study from Ungar et al5 showed that adalimumab concentrations of 8–12 μg/mL are required to achieve mucosal healing in 80%–90% of patients with IBD, and the prospective PANTS (The Personalised Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease Study) study identified an adalimumab concentration of 12 μg/mL at week 14 associated with remission at both week 14 and week 54.8..

Third, dose escalation for the TDM group could only happen at weeks 14, 28, or 42 (and not earlier and more often). In the PAILOT RCT, proactive TDM based on adalimumab concentration evaluations started as early as week 4 followed by week 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter until the end of the follow-up at week 72.3 Fourth, there was a rather short follow-up of the patients (44 weeks).”

” Even with the assumption of a 30% benefit of proactive TDM and that 20% of patients would have low drug levels in the absence of symptoms, the sample size for 80% power would range from 1228 to 2170. Thus, although SERENE CD1 and other clinical trials3,4 have suggested a lack of benefit of proactive TDM in adults with inflammatory bowel disease, all were likely substantially underpowered to do so.”

My take: While the SERENE-CD results have suggested that a strategy of proactive TDM may not be helpful, there are a lot of reasons to disregard these findings. Achieving a therapeutic level is a fundamental principle and proactive TDM, particularly in pediatrics, is well-supported by other studies.

Related blog posts:

Also noted:

Adalimumab Biosimilars on the Horizon (Finally) Plus Two Studies

Posted on by

GoodRx Health (Jan 3, 2023): Humira Biosimilar Boom: 8 Meds Launching in 2023 There are more than 17 billion reasons why there are 8 new adalimumab (Humira) biosimilars coming to the market.

Excerpts:

1. Amjevita

Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) will be available in prefilled autoinjector pens (40 mg) and prefilled syringes (20 mg, 40 mg). Amjevita products will come in low-concentration forms, but they will be citrate-free. It’s expected to launch on January 31, 2023.

2. Cyltezo

Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) became the first biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with Humira. Interchangeable biosimilars go through additional studies to determine whether you can switch back and forth between the biosimilar and the original product without issues. Biosimilars without this designation haven’t gone through these same studies. 

Cyltezo will only be available in a prefilled syringe and will come in two doses: 20 mg and 40 mg. Both are low-concentration forms and citrate-free. Cyltezo is expected to launch in the U.S. as early as July 1, 2023.

3. Hyrimoz

Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz): a 40 mg dose will be available in both a pen and a syringe. A 10 mg syringe will also be available. Both are low-concentration forms. These products contain citric acid, which is closely related to citrate. Citric acid can also make injections more painful. A citrate-free high-concentration form of Hyrimoz is currently under FDA review. Hyrimoz is expected to launch in the U.S. on September 30, 2023.

4. Hadlima

Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd) will be available in both an autoinjector and a syringe in a 40 mg dose. And it will come in both low- and high-concentration forms. The high-concentration form will be citrate-free. Hadlima is expected to launch in the U.S. on or after July 1, 2023.

5. Abrilada

Abrilada (adalimumab-afzb) will be available in a prefilled pen (40 mg) and in a syringe (10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg). All Abrilada products will be low-concentration forms and citrate-free. Abrilada’s manufacturer has applied for interchangeable status with Humira. Abrilada is expected to launch in the U.S. as early as July 1, 2023.

6. Hulio

Hulio (adalimumab-fkjp) will be available in a prefilled pen (40 mg) and in a syringe (20 mg and 40 mg). All forms are low-concentration and citrate-free. Hulio is expected to launch in the U.S. on or after July 1, 2023.

7. Yusimry

Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) will only be available in a 40 mg prefilled syringe. It will be in a low-concentration form and citrate-free. Yusimry is expected to launch in the U.S. on or after July 1, 2023.

8. Idacio

Idacio (adalimumab-aacf) will be available in a 40 mg dose in both a pen and a syringe. Both forms will be low-concentration and citrate-free. Idacio is expected to launch in the U.S. as early as July 1, 2023.

My take: In high school, one of math teachers used to call me Hochman sub-1 and my twin brother Hochman sub-2. Perhaps, we can start designating biosimilars in a similar fashion?

Related blog posts:

Two other important studies I wanted to cite -both studies have Benjamin Gold, one of my better-known partners, as one of the authors:

  • KA Chien, C Thomas, V Cooley, T Weinstein, KF Murray, L Muir, C Hayes, BD Gold, LM Gerber, CG Sauer, G Tomer. JPGN 2023; 76: 25-32. Physician Burnout in Pediatric Gastroenterology In this survey with 408 responses (23% response rate), the authors found 29% reported high risk for emotional exhaustion, 18% reported high risk for depersonalization, and 33% reported overall burnout.
  • VC Cohran, BD Gold, DJ Spencer, CR Cole. JPGN 2022; 75: 689-691. Health Care Disparities in Gastroenterology: The Pediatric Gastroenterology Perspective This commentary reviewed survey results highlighting healthcare disparities which have been identified in IBD, NALFD, and liver transplantation. The authors outline some of the steps that NASPGHAN has taken as well as some of the work that is needed.

SEAVUE: Head-to-Head Ustekimumab vs. Adalimumab

Posted on by

BE Sands et al.Lancet 2022; 399: 2200-2211. Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial

Methods: This was  “a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s…Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications.”

386 patients were enrolled.

Key findings:

  • 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52
  • At week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (CDAI <150)
  • Endoscopic remission at week 52: ustekinumab 29% and for adalimumab 29%
  • Endoscopic response at week 52: ustekinumab 42%and for adalimumab 37%
  • Rapid onset of clinical response was seen with both therapies with improvement noted as early as week 2 assessment
  • Antidrug antibodies were less frequent with ustekinumab compared to adalimumab: 2% vs 74%.
  • Infections were reported in 65 (34%) of ustekinumab group compared to 79 (41%) of adalimumab group. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group.
  • No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study.

My take:

  1. Both medications had a high similar response rate. Ustekinumab had fewer patients discontinue medication and lower immunogenicity which could improve efficacy/duration of response in an extended study.
  2. It is good to see a well-designed head-to-head study rather than a placebo-control arm. Placebo-based studies are hard to justify given the availability of multiple effective agents.

Near Denali, AK

Kids Are Different: Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Posted on by

NH Nguyen et al. Gastroenterol 2022; 163: 937-949. Open Access! Proactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Versus Conventional Management for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Key finding:

  • On meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (8 RCTs in adults, and focusing on maintenance phase), there was no significant difference in the risk of failing to maintain clinical remission in patients who underwent proactive TDM (267/709; 38%) vs conventional management (292/696; 42%) (relative risk [RR], 0.96)

The discussion in this paper makes some important points, as there are some populations in which proactive TDM is more likely to be beneficial.

Pediatrics:

“The impact of proactive TDM in pediatric patients also merits further consideration. This concept may be particularly important in pediatrics due to the variability in size of patients, which may not be adequately addressed by weight-based dosing.33 This is especially important in younger children, where it has been shown that standard TNFα antagonist regimens and trough levels may not be applicable in this age group, and may require more frequent escalation of therapy.34,35 In the PAILOT trial, proactive TDM in children with clinical response to adalimumab was associated with higher rates of maintaining sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission at all visits from week 8–72, compared with reactive TDM in which physicians were informed of trough concentration only after loss of response.”

Induction Dosing (Adults and Children):

“It is possible that the early measurement of biologic drug concentrations, to identify patients who may have accelerated clearance, and optimization of a subset of these patients early in the course of therapy may offer benefit.1,30 …Ongoing trials such as OPTIMIZE (NCT04835506) and TITRATE (NCT03937609) in which infliximab is optimized during the induction phase through a pharmacokinetic dashboard in patients with Crohn’s disease and acute severe ulcerative colitis will shed further light on this.”

My take: So far, studies in adults have not shown that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring has been effective in improving clinical outcomes. This may change particularly if studies focus on patients on monotherapy who are at increased risk of subtherapeutic levels. No matter what happens in adults, there is sufficient data showing that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is essential in children. This is especially important as ‘routine” dosing of infliximab in children may be subtherapeutic in nearly 80%.

Related blog posts:

The Curtain or The Box: Therapeutic Dilemmas

Posted on by

X Roblin et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022; 28: 720-727. Swapping Versus Dose Optimization in Patients Losing Response to Adalimumab With Adequate Drug Levels

Many times, treatment decisions are like on “Let’s Make a Deal.” That is, should I stick with what I’ve got or should I try for something better & sometimes wind up with a goat. In this referenced article, patients were under maintenance therapy with adalimumab (ADA) monotherapy (40 mg every 14 days) and had experienced a secondary loss of response (LOR) despite trough levels > 4.9 μg/mL. In this nonrandomized prospective study, patients were either swapped to vedolizumab (VDZ) or optimized on adalimumab (ADA) treatment.

Key findings:

  • At 24 months, 11 out of 70 patients (16%) in the swap group discontinued treatment compared with 36 out of 61 (59%) patients in the optimization group (P < 0.001)
  • In the optimization group, treatment discontinuation was positively associated with baseline fecal calprotectin >500 μg/g (HR, 3.5)
  • In patients selected for optimization, 56% (34/61) remained on ADA at 1 year and 41% (25/61) at 2 years

In their discussion, the authors state “current guidelines recommend switching to another class of biologics in case of LOR to ADA with therapeutic drug levels.” However, the authors note that their therapeutic level cut-off of >4.9 mcg/mL is lower than the latest recommendations. In addition, in their conclusion, they note that due to limited biologic options, “ADA optimization strategy might be considered” in a subgroup.

My take: Despite better results in the patients that swapped to VDZ in this study, I think it is important to assure adequate drug levels before choosing a new drug class. For ADA, expert recommendations have suggested a level of 8-12 as therapeutic and to avoid discontinuation if ADA level is less than 10. In this study, more than 40% remained on ADA two years after LOR in those with dosing optimization.

Related blog post:

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

Panoramic View -Sandia Mountain, NM

SERENE Study: Does a Higher Induction Dose of Adalimumab Help for Crohn’s Disease?

Posted on by

GR D’Haens et al. Gastroenterol 2022; DOI:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2022.01.044. Open Access: Higher vs Standard Adalimumab Induction Dosing Regimens and Two Maintenance Strategies: Randomized SERENE CD Trial Results

Methods: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, eligible adults were randomized to higher induction regimen (adalimumab 160 mg at weeks 0, 1, 2, and 3; n = 308) or standard induction regimen (adalimumab 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2; n = 206) followed by 40 mg every other week from week 4 onward. Endoscopic results were interpreted by a central reviewer.

Key Findings:

  • Similar proportions of patients receiving higher induction regimen and standard induction regimen achieved clinical remission at week 4 (44% in both; P = .939) and endoscopic response at week 12 (43% vs 39%, respectively, P = .462).
  • There was a high proportion of patients (>70%) who achieved corticosteroid-free clinical remission after an early corticosteroid taper beginning at week 4
  • Week 56 efficacy was similar between clinically-adjusted (CA) and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).  28% of patients in the CA group and 39% of TDM had their dose escalated.
  • Safety profiles were comparable between dosing regimens.

In the discussion, the authors wade into the topic of TDM for adalimumab:

“Results from the exploratory SERENE CD study suggesting there is no clinical benefit of a proactive TDM strategy over a CA strategy for optimizing adalimumab maintenance dosing align with the results from previous studies evaluating TDM of anti–tumor necrosis factor therapies in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. In the TAXIT study, proactive TDM was not superior to CA dose optimization for achieving remission at 1 year in patients with CD or ulcerative colitis.24 Similarly, in the TAILORIX study of patients with CD, proactive TDM failed to improve clinical and endoscopic remission rates over a CA approach.25 In contrast, proactive TDM led to a higher clinical remission rate than did reactive TDM among pediatric patients with CD in the PAILOT trial, but this trial was nonblinded and lacked endoscopic assessments.26“

My take: This study shows that standard induction performed as well as higher dose induction in adults with Crohn’s disease. Also, this study found that TDM did not improve response at 56 weeks in adults. Due to differences in body size and metabolism, the exact role for TDM in pediatric patients needs further study.

Related blog posts:

HIR =high dose induction regimen, SIR =standard induction regimen

Nonmedical Adalimumab Switches

Posted on by

G Tapete et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022; 28: 62-69. Effectiveness and Safety of Nonmedical Switch From Adalimumab Originator to SB5 Biosimilar in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Twelve-Month Follow-Up From the TABLET Registry

Methods: Prospective enrollment (n=146) included a ADA and those with a nonmedical switch from the ADA originator (n=98). Clinical remission and safety were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months

Key finding:

  • In the naïve cohort, the overall remission rate at 12 months was 60% (similar to originator adalimumab results); the remission rate in the switching cohort it was 75% with a treatment persistency of 82% at 12 months after the switch
  • No differences were found in terms of ADA serum trough levels at baseline, 3, and 6 months after switching. No patient developed antidrug antibodies after the switch
  • Fecal calprotectin (FC) values trended lower in both cohorts. In the naive cohort, the mean value of FC dropped from 665 (baseline) to 231 at 12 months. In the switch cohort, the mean value of FC dropped from 212 (baseline) to 84 at 12 months

My take: In this cohort, SB5 biosimilar for adalimumab was effective and safe.

Related blog posts: