What about Combination Therapy with Adalimumab?

M Matar et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 1627-1635. Free full text link: Combination Therapy of Adalimumab With an Immunomodulator Is Not More Effective Than Adalimumab Monotherapy in Children With Crohn’s Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of the PAILOT Randomized Controlled Trial

Methods: Participants (n=78, ages 6-17 years) in this study were part of the PAILOT trial; they were naïve to biologic therapy with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. This was a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate proactive vs reactive therapeutic drug monitoring in children with Crohn’s disease (CD) treated with adalimumab. 

Key findings:

  • There was no significant difference in the rates of sustained corticosteroid-free clinical remission (25/34, 73%, vs 28/44, 63%; P = 0.35) or sustained composite outcome of clinical remission, C-reactive protein ≤0.5 mg/dL, and calprotectin ≤150 µg/g (10/34, 29%, vs 14/44, 32%; P = 0.77) between the combination group and the monotherapy group, respectively.
  • Adalimumab trough concentrations and immunogenicity were not significantly different between groups. The rate of serious adverse events was not significantly different between groups but was numerically higher in the monotherapy group. The monotherapy group had three patients undergo ileo-cecal resection.

The discussion reviews a number of studies that have compared combination and monotherapy. One key point is that this study enrolled children who were naïve to biologic therapy; thus, combination therapy may be more useful in those who have failed a previous biologic, particularly if the loss of response was immune-mediated.

My take: This study indicates that combination therapy is likely not routinely needed in children who start adalimumab and who are naïve to biologic therapy. Another finding of interest is the relatively low sustained composite outcome of clinical remission, approximately 30; this outcome combined clinical remission with biological markers. ~30%

Pitt Street Bridge Park, Mt Pleasant SC

In Case You Missed It: IBD Year in Review (Eric Benchimol)

I did not have the opportunity to hear this #NASPGHAN20 lecture but Dr. Benchimol has shared his slides. Link to Dropbox Slides: IBD Clinical Science: Year in Review

Some of the key points on slides (links to articles below):

Some screenshots:

Links to many of the referenced papers:


Related links:

IBD Update -July 2020

X Roblin et al. Gut 2020; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319758 Addition of azathioprine to the switch of anti-TNF in patients with IBD in clinical relapse with undetectable anti-TNF trough levels and antidrug antibodies: a prospective randomised trial. Key Findings:

  • Rates of clinical failure and occurrence of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were higher in monotherapy compared with combination therapy
  • At 24 months, survival rates without clinical failure and without appearance of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were respectively 22% versus 77% and 22% versus 78% (p<0.001 for both) in monotherapy versus combination therapy

RC Ungaro et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1152-60.  The authors retrospectively analyzed 3178 patients with Crohn’s disease and found that stopping mesalamine therapy in individuals who were starting biologic therapy did NOT increase their risk of adverse clinical events.  They caution that their findings should be validated in a prospective study.

J Wang et al. AP&T. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15766. Full Text: Risk factors and treatment outcomes of peristomal pyoderma gangrenosum in patients with inflammatory bowel disease Key finding: “Complete resolution with topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors alone were low (14% and 13% respectively). Higher rates of complete resolution were reported with anti‐tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents (63%) and surgical interventions (80%).”

B Verstockt et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1142-51. The authors found that expression of 4 genes in colon tissue could be used to predict which patients will enter endoscopic remission with vedolizumab therapy.  Given the increasing number of expensive therapies for IBD, the ability to predict likely success with treatment rather than selecting empirically would be a huge advance.

ST Leach et al. JPGN 2020; 70: 580-5. The authors found that fecal calprotectin was overall the best fecal biomarker for pediatric Crohn’s disease (=156 patients); however, FA12  (aka S100A12) at 5 mcg/g predicted mucosal healing with greater specificity (87% vs 70%) –though this is related in part to the cut-off values. For calprotectin to have greater specificity (>90%), a cut-off of <100 mcg/g lowered the sensitivity to 63%. FA12 also performs better in younger children as calprotectin levels are higher in this age group in healthy children.

Expert Guidance on Current Management of IBD (Part 1)

A recent issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology focused solely on the clinical features and management of inflammatory bowel disease. Even for those with expertise in IBD, there is a lot of useful information and concise reviews of what is known.

Here are some of my notes from this issue:

AN Ananthakrishnan et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1252-60. Changing Global Epidemiology of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Sustaining Health Care Delivery Into the 21st Century

Reviews risk factors and recommends the following as ways to lower risk of developing IBD for at-risk individuals:

  • Breastfeeding in infancy
  • Do not start smoking
  • Avoid vitamin D deficiency
  • Minimize non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use
  • Minimize antibiotic use especially for young children and during pregnancy
  • Encourage moderate physical activity, healthy weight, low stress and regular sleep
  • Diet high in fruit, vegetables, fiber, and fish

Reviews the epidemiology and notes that there has been a evidence of a decline in incidence in IBD in (at least) the Western world; however, because of compounding prevalence, it is expected that the number of individuals with IBD will continue to rise.  In Canada, for example, it is expected that the prevalence will rise from 0.7% in 2018 to 1% by 2030.

In newly industrialized countries, it is expected that rising incidence is going to substantially increase the global disease burden. The authors note the following as areas needed in research and clinical care to meet global IBD care burden:

  • tools for early diagnosis
  • early effective intervention to prevent irreversible bowel damage
  • precision medicine to select the right treatment for the right patient
  • need for less costly and more safe therapies
  • simple tools to monitor disease activity
  • primary disease prevention strategies, especially for those at high risk

CA Siegel, CN Bernstein. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1261-7. Identifying Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases at High vs Low Risk of Complications

This article’s disease-stratification information overlaps with subsequent articles which detail the positioning of therapies for Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) respectively.

NH Nguyen, S Singh, WJ Sandborn. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1267-79. Positioning Therapies in the Management of Crohn’s Disease.

Some of the information summarized in this article:

Table 2 -Comparative Efficacy of Biologics for Moderate to Severe Active Crohn’s Disease (CD):

  • Infliximab: For induction: OR compared to placebo for remission: 5.90 (2.78-12.51); probability of remission 60%. For maintenance in those with clinical response: probability of remission SUCRA ranking: 48%; 0.68
  • Adalimumab: For induction: OR compared to placebo for remission: 3.80 (1.76-8.18); probability of remission 49%. For maintenance in those with clinical response: probability of remission SUCRA ranking: 58%; 0.97
  • Ustekinumab: For induction: OR compared to placebo for remission: 2.75 (1.76-4.32); probability of remission 41%.  For maintenance in those with clinical response: probability of remission SUCRA ranking: 39%; 0.36
  • Vedolizumab: For induction: OR compared to placebo for remission: 2.69 (1.36-5.32); probability of remission 40%.  For maintenance in those with clinical response: probability of remission SUCRA ranking: 42%; 0.52
  • Certolizumab pegol: For induction:  OR compared to placebo for remission: 1.36 (0.89-2.08); probability of remission 25%.  For maintenance in those with clinical response: probability of remission SUCRA ranking: 42%; 0.48

In deciding therapy, the authors specify factors that help classify as high-risk CD Table1):

  • Structural damage: large or deep mucosal lesions, fistula or perianal abscess, prior resections (especially if >40 cm)
  • Inflammatory burden: extensive disease involvement (ileal disease >40 cm or pancolitis), increased C-reactive protein, low albumin
  • Impact on quality of life: presence of stoma, >10 loose stools/week, lack of symptomatic improvement with prior biologics and/or immunomodulators, presence of anorectal symptoms, anemia, daily abdominal pain
  • Emerging predictors: antimicrobial antibody pattern, antimicrobial genetic peptide signature

Though the authors note a lack of adequate head-to-head comparative studies, they make some recommendations for treatment:

  • For severe disease, they suggest first-line therapy for CD would be infliximab or adalimumab in combination therapy regimen (with infliximab favored for higher disease severity)
  • For second-line therapy, they suggest ustekinumab for most patients in combination therapy or 2nd anti-TNF in those with loss or response due to immunogenicity or intolerance
  • For those with higher risk factors for adverse events (or preference) and moderate disease severity, the authors recommend vedolizumab as 1st line and ustekinumab as 2nd line.  For this same group with higher disease severity, they suggest ustekinumab as 1st line treatment.

Other key points:

  • In terms of risk of malignancy, the authors note that in a comprehensive systematic review of 23 RCTs of TNF-alpha antagonists in IBD, there was NO significant increase in the risk of malignancy with TNF-alpha antagonists.
  • In terms of combination therapy, the authors note that their has been an observed benefit which is “at least partly attributed to achieving a higher biologic trough concentration….no differences in efficacy of combination therapy vs infliximab were observed when evaluating patients by quartiles of infliximab trough concentration; however, currently this represents association rather than causation, and it is possible that superior remission rates drove higher trough concentrations, rather than vice versa.”

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.

Combination Therapy Associated with Treatment Persistence

Another large retrospective ‘real-world’ study (C Chen et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019; 1417-27) examined persistence profiles of biologic therapies in newly diagnosed IBD patients.  This study, based on Truven Health MarketScan data (2008-2015) included 5612 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 3533 with ulcerative colitis (UC). There were 1156 persons (20.6%) in the pediatric age range (0-18)

Key findings:

  • Less than half of the patients continued using their initial biologic treatment after 1 year (48.5% of CD cohort and 44.8% of UC cohort).
  • For infliximab (IFX) in the CD cohort, the 1 year continued rate was 47.6% and the 5 year rate was 20.0%. In the UC cohort, the rates were 44.9% and 15.7% respectively.
  • For adalimumab (ADA) in the CD cohort, the 1 year continued rate was 50.9% and the 5 year rate was 9.1%. In the UC cohort, the rates were 45.4% and 7.7% respectively.
  • Combination therapy with immunomodulators (IMM) significantly decreased the risk of discontinuation, especially if IMM was started more than 30 days before the biologic agent (HR 0.22).  Simultaneous starting had HR of 0.32.
  • The major predictors for noncompliance included infection and hospitalization.

Why did combination therapy result in higher medication persistence rates?

  • Potential reasons included improved efficacy by direct inflammatory effects and reduced drug antibodies to TNF antagonists.  It is possible that patients receiving combination therapy had more severe disease and thus less likely to discontinue therapy.

Limitation: This study may overestimate drug discontinuation as some patients may simply have had a dosing delay.

My take: This study shows a higher-than-expected rate of drug discontinuation indicating dissatisfaction related to efficacy, cost or complications. Those receiving immunomodulators (combination therapy) were much less likely to discontinue treatment.

Related blog posts:

Wizard Island, Crater Lake, OR

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  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

Combination Therapy Still Works for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (Part 1)

There is speculation that the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may obviate the advantages of combination therapy. However, there is plenty of data supporting combination therapy including a recent retrospective population-based study (LE Targownik et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 1788-98).

This ‘real-world’ study (2001-2016) utilized the Manitoba IBD database and included 852 persons with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 303 with ulcerative colitis (UC).

Key findings: 

  • In persons with CD, combination therapy (immunomodulator with a TNF antagonist) was associated with lower treatment ineffectiveness with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for ineffectiveness at 0.62.  The ineffectiveness in UC persons was lower at 0.82 but did not reach statistical significance.
  • When looking at specific time frames, among patients with CD, at 1 year, combination therapy the rate of ineffectiveness-free treatment was 74.2% for combination therapy compared to 68.6% for monotherapy; at 2 years, the rates were 64.0% and 54.5% respectively.
  • Combination therapy in CD was associated with increased time to first IBD-related hospitalization with aHR of 0.53 and with lower rates of switching anti-TNF agents (aHR 0.63).  Lower rate of surgery (aHR 0.76) did not reach statistical significance.
  • The choice of immunomodulator (6-MP/AZA vs MTX) and the choice of anti-TNF agent (IFX or ADA) did not significantly influence the overall benefit of combination therapy.  Though, AZA was the main concomitant treatment (92%).
  • 90% of the patients in the study who received combination therapy had received immunomodulator therapy prior to combination therapy.  This is in contrast to the SONIC study in which patients were naive to both agents.
  • 57% of IFX users and 43% of ADA users received concomitant therapy.

My take: Combination therapy has been associated with higher response rates to IBD therapy.  This advantage has to be weighed against potential adverse effects.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  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.

Wizard Island. Crater Lake, OR

Combination Therapy Study Points to Central Role of Adequate Drug Levels

A recent study (JF Colombel et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 1525-32) examines the effect of combination therapy and drug levels in achieving corticosteroid-free remission at week 26 (CSFR26).

The authors performed a post hoc analysis from 206 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD): 97 monotherapy with infliximab & 109 with combination infliximab/azathioprine

Key findings:

  • The proportions of patients achieving CSFR26 were not significantly greater among those receiving combination therapy vs monotherapy within the same serum infliximab concentrations
  • Mean trough infliximab concentrations in the combination therapy were higher than for monotherapy: 3.54 mcg/mL vs. 1.55 mcg/mL
  • Higher levels of antidrug antibodies were seen with monotherapy: 35.9% vs 8.3% of those with combination therapy.  Antidrug antibodies were detected only in those with lowest quartile of infliximab trough levels.

My take: This study indicates that combination therapy’s higher efficacy is due to  favorable pharmacokinetics rather than drug synergy.  If good infliximab trough levels can be achieved with infliximab monotherapy, this may obviate the need for combination therapy.  The uncertain factor is whether closer attention to trough levels will minimize the development of antidrug antibodies as effectively as the use of combination therapy.

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  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.

Sagrada Familia, Barcelona

Can Therapeutic Drug Monitoring with Monotherapy Achieve Similar Results as Combination Therapy for IBD?

A recent retrospective study (S Lega et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019; 25: 134-41) suggests that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (pTDM) with infliximab (IFX) helps achieve similar outcomes as combination therapy (with immunomodulator) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Before reviewing the key findings, it is important to emphasize a few crucial limitations/methods:

  • The study enrolled 83 patients; only 16 received were in the monotherapy pTDM group.
  • This was a retrospective study
  • The authors utilized TDM at week 10. (week 10 infliximab level). If the IFX level was <20 mcg/mL, the dose and frequency of infliximab were both adjusted. If the level was between 20 & 25, either the frequency was adjusted or no adjustment, and if the level was >25, then no adjustment in dosing was performed.

Key findings:

  • The frequency of infliximab discontinuation with mono therapy in those with pTDM was lower than in those with ‘standard of care’ TDM (P=0.04) but did not differ from patients receiving combination therapy
  • Overall 9 of the 83 patients (11%) discontinued IFX during the 1-year study

In the discussion, the authors suggest that week 14 TDM may be suboptimal as this is the first time patients have an 8-week interval.

My take: The jury is out with regard to whether pTDM can negate the need for combination therapy  –a prospective trial is needed; however, the idea of getting TDM a bit earlier is intriguing, particularly as it has been shown that a high percentage of pediatric patients are receiving an insufficient dose of infliximab (Is Standard Infliximab Dose Tool Low in Pediatrics?)

Key words: 10 weeks, therapeutic drug monitoring, infliximab, trough

Related blog posts:

Disclaimer: These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications/diets (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician/nutritionist.  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.

View from Artist’s Drive, Death Valley

IBD Shorts August 2018

Vitamin D Receptor Signaling in IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018; 24: 1149-54.  This article reviews the ways vitamin D/vitamin D receptor may contribute to the genetic, environmental, immune, and microbial aspects of IBD.

LY Chi et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018; 24: 1344-51. This study with 223 pediatric patients & young adults found that current or prior combination therapy with infliximab, compared to monotherapy resulted in higher infliximab levels and lower antibody formation. Combination agent was mainly methotrexate (n=71) rather than thiopurine (n=13). In those with infliximab dose <10 mg/kg, those currently receiving combination therapy had median level of 11.1 compared with 7.0 for prior combination and 5.86 for monotherapy (never combination).

CM Johnson et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 900-7.  In this retrospective study with 1466 patients with Crohn’s disease, the subset of patients with granulomas (n=187, 12.8%) were associated with a more aggressive phenotype and a younger age at diagnosis (23.6 years compared with 27.9 years; P= .0005). These patients had higher rates of steroid use, narcotic use, more stricturing and penetrating disease along with increase rates of surgery.

 

Sub-Analysis of DIAMOND Study

K Watanabe et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 542-9.

The DIAMOND study evaluated monotherapy with adalimumab (n=85) compared with combination therapy of adalimumab with azathioprine (n=91).

Key findings:

  • In this subanalysis of patients with moderate and severe Crohn’s disease (CD), endoscopic response (defined by SES-CD drop of at least 8 points or SES-CD <4) was significantly higher at week 26: 71.6% vs 54.4%. The OR for endoscopic response was 2.12 at week 26 with combination therapy.
  • At week 52 the endoscopic response difference was not statistically significant: 60% vs. 50%.
  • Similarly, mucosal healing was more common (but not statistically significant) in the combination group compared with monotherapy: 20.9% vs 103% at week 26, and 21.5% vs 12.2% at week 52.
  •  While not statistically significant, the combination group had ADA trough that was higher (7.6 compared with 6.5).

My take: The results described above for endoscopic responses and mucosal healing rates are depicted in figure 2 (I do not have a digital copy of figure or permission to use).  After one looks at this figure, depicting the data noted above, there certainly appears to be an advantage for the use of combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe CD.

Related blog posts:

 

 

I have not independently verified the claims on this tweet