How Much Infliximab Can You Give to Young Children?

A recent case series (A Assa et al. JPGN 2020; 71: 516-520. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-guided High-dose Infliximab for Infantile-onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case Series) describes four infants (2 mo-12 mo) with infantile-onset IBD who received high doses of infliximab.

Treatments regimens utilized infliximab dosing of 10-22 mg/kg/dose with initial three doses over 2-4 weeks. Other prior treatments in these patients included antibiotics (eg. vancomycin/gentamicin) and corticosteroids. Sulfasalazine was administered in two of the patients.

Other Key Points:

  • The authors noted that patients gradually transitioned to every 4 week therapy whild seeking to maintain trough concentrations >10 mcg/mL.
  • Infants have several risk factors for inadequate serum infliximab levels. Infliximab clearance is not linearly weight-related and infants are “most susceptible for under-dosing.”
  • Infliximab distribution in infants & children differs from adults with more peripheral compartment distribution, leading to lower trough levels.
  • Severity of disease impacts infliximab levels and can cause a ‘sink’ effect

The authors note that higher doses may increase adverse events, including infections

My take: This study shows that highly-selected patients may need both accelerated and higher doses of infliximab to enable response. It adds to the literature that children, in general, are at high risk of under-dosing with ‘standard’ infliximab dosing.

Related blog posts:

Published IBD-COVID-19 Data from SECURE-IBD & Others

When I received an email in EARLY MARCH of this year regarding SECURE-IBD, I thought the researchers were insightful and proactive.  Recently, the authors published their early findings: EJ Brenner, RC Ungaro et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 159: 481-491. Full Text PDF: Corticosteroids, But Not TNF Antagonists, Are Associated With Adverse COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Results From an International Registry

“Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is a large, international registry created to monitor outcomes of patients with IBD with confirmed COVID-19.”

Key findings:

  • 525 cases from 33 countries were reported (median age 43 years, 53% men)
  • Risk factors for severe COVID-19 among patients with IBD included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.02), ≥2 comorbidities (aOR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1–7.8), systemic corticosteroids (aOR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.3–20.5), and sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylate use (aOR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3–7.7).
  • Tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment was not associated with severe COVID-19 (aOR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4–2.2)

Other COVID-19 articles from same journal:

My take: There is a tremendous amount of information regarding SARS-CoV-2 & COVID-19 with regard to the GI tract and liver disease.  For the most part, the data indicate that individuals need to continue to treat their underlying disease and that most therapies do not increase the risk of worsening infection; the biggest risk factors remain increasing age and common comorbidities (eg. obesity, hypertension, and diabetes).  The published studies also provide insight and recommendations for preventing SARS-CoV-2 for health care providers.

Related blog posts:

“Positioning Biologic Therapies in the Management of Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease” & 14% of U.S. Infected with COVID-19

J Breton et al. Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2020; 16: 400-14. Full text: Positioning Biologic Therapies in the Management of Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

This is a terrific summary of biologic therapies for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Compared to adults, the pediatric data is much more limited.  This may affect recommendations.  For example, recent AGA guidelines for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adults suggests that either ustekinumab or tofacitinib is generally preferable as a 2nd line agent rather than vedolizumab in patients with primary infliximab failure (Blog post: AGA Guidelines: Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis).  In the chart below, vedolizumab is recognized as a preferred 2nd line agent.

In the section on vedolizumab:

The favorable risk-benefit profile makes vedolizumab an ideal therapeutic choice for pediatric IBD. However, an important limitation is its delayed onset of action, for which corticosteroid use as bridge therapy is often necessary in this population that is already at increased risk of growth failure and bone loss. Recently, Hamel and colleagues published their small, single-center experience of using concomitant tacrolimus between anti-TNFα withdrawal to vedolizumab maintenance as a corticosteroid-sparing bridge therapy in moderate to severe IBD (Ref: Hamel B, Wu M, Hamel EO, Bass DM, Park KT. Outcome of tacrolimus and vedolizumab after corticosteroid and anti-TNF failure in paediatric severe colitis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2018;5(1):e000195).

This article addresses therapeutic drug monitoring:

TDM is a key component of managing IBD patients on anti-TNFα therapy. While  reactive TDM of antiTNFα agents has been adopted by societal guidelines, there is an increasing body of literature to support the benefit of proactive TDM, particularly in pediatric populations

Conclusions from authors: Anti-TNFα agents have revolutionized the management of IBD, positively modifying the natural disease history in children. Importantly, inception cohort studies of pediatric CD and UC (RISK and PROTECT, respectively) have highlighted the variable course of disease and necessity of adopting an individualized approach with early use of biologic therapy in patients at risk of severe disease progression. 

Biologics Used in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Related blog posts:

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

 

The Downside of Home Infusion of Biologics

N Giese-Kim et al. Am J Gastroenterol: July 22, 2020 – Volume Publish Ahead of Print – Issue – doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000750. Link to abstract:  Home Infliximab Infusions Are Associated With Suboptimal Outcomes Without Cost Savings in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

In this study, there were 27,396 patients with IBD (1,839 pediatric patients). Overall, 5.7% of patients used home infliximab infusions.

Results:

  • Those with home infusions:
    •  more likely to be nonadherent compared with both office-based (22.2% vs 19.8%; P = .044) and hospital-based infusions (22.2% vs 21.2%; P < .001).
    • more likely to discontinue infliximab compared with office-based (44.7% vs 33.7%; P < .001) or hospital-based (44.7% vs 33.4%; P < .001) infusions.
  • On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probabilities of remaining on infliximab by day 200 of therapy were 64.4%, 74.2%, and 79.3% for home-, hospital-, and office-based infusions, respectively (P < .001)
  • Home infusions did not decrease overall annual care costs compared with office infusions ($49,149 vs $43,466, P < .001)

My take: In my experience, office-based infusions can be provided safely and in a cost-effective manner.  From the authors: “home infliximab infusions for patients with IBD were associated with suboptimal outcomes including higher rates of nonadherence and discontinuation of infliximab. Home infusions did not result in significant cost savings compared with office infusions.”

Related blog posts:

IBD Update -August 2020

S Jansson et al JPGN 2020; 71: 40-5. This retrospective study (1998-2008) showed that pediatric patients with extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) had more severe IBD course than patients with IBD without an EIM.  EIM often had a temporal relationship with a relapse of IBD as well. Of 333 patients, 14 had an EIM at diagnosis and 47 had an EIM develop during followup.

PA Olivera, JS Lasa et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 1554-73. This systematic review and meta-analysis ultimately included 82 studies with 66,159 patients (including those with IBD and other immune-mediated diseases) exposed to a JAK inhibitor; two-thirds of studies were randomized controlled trials.  Key findings:

  • Incidence rates of serious infections, herpes zoster infection, malignancy, and major cardiovascular events were 2.81, 2.67, 0.89, and 0.48 per 100 person year respectively. After meta-analysis, the authors conclude that there is an increased risk of herpes zoster (RR 1.57), but all other adverse events were not increased among patients treated with JAK inhibitors
  • Mortality was not increased in those receiving JAK inhibitors compared to placebo

Loebenstein, JD Schulberg. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 2069-71.  This case report describes a successful alternative anti-TNF rechallenge after infliximab induced Lupus in Crohn’s disease.  The authors note that in a previous study, 14 of 20 IBD patents with drug-induced lupus secondary to an anti-TNF agent were rechallenged with an alternative anti-TNF agent and 13/14 tolerated rechallenge without recurrent lupus (Inflamm Bowel Dise 2013; 19: 2778-86).

These images show active disease prior to intervention. The article provides f/u images showing endoscopic remission after re-starting a different anti-TNF agent.

IBD Briefs June 2020

SA Draiweesh et al. Safety of Combination Biologic and Antirejection Therapy Post-Liver Transplantation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 949-59. In this case series of 19 patients, 14 who had liver transplantation for PSC, there was no increased risk of serious infections among patients receiving biologic therapy in combination with antirejection medications.

A Malian et al. Pedictors [sic] of Perianal Fistula Relapse in Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 926-31. In this retrospective study with 137 patients, fistula relapse rates were not different in patients receiving infliximab or adalimumab (P = 0.66). In patients treated by anti-TNF at inclusion, discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy (odds ratio 3.49, P = 0.04), colonic location (OR 6.25, P = 0.01), and stricturing phenotype (odds ratio 4.39, P = 0.01) were independently associated with fistula relapse in multivariate analysis.

M-H Wang et al. Unique Phenotypic Characteristics and Clinical Course in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Multicenter US Experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 774-81. Among 522 patients with UC, 56 (10.7%) had PSC. Compared with UC alone, patients with UC-PSC were younger (younger than 20 years) at diagnosis (odds ratios [OR], 2.35; adjusted P = 0.02) and had milder UC severity (adjusted P = 0.05), despite having pancolonic involvement (OR, 7.01; adjusted P < 0.001).  In the biologics era (calendar year 2005 to 2015), patients with UC-PSC less commonly received anti-TNF therapy compared with patients with UC (OR, 0.38; adjusted P = 0.009), but their response rates were similar.

B Barberio et al. Matrix Metalloproteinase 3 Predicts Therapeutic Response in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Treated with Infliximab. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 756-62. Retrospectively, 73 IBD patients who had received IFX for at least 1 year were enrolled: 35 patients were responders and 38 were nonresponders at 52 weeks…The MMP3 levels were similar at baseline (19.83 vs 17.92 ng/mL), but at postinduction, patients who failed to respond at 1 year had significantly higher levels than patients who responded (26.09 vs 8.68 ng/mL, P < 0.001); the difference was confirmed at week 52 (29.56 vs 11.48 ng/mL, P < 0.001)…The MMP3 serum determination may represent an early marker of response to infliximab.

 

What Happens After The First Anti-TNF Agent Doesn’t Work?

A recent intriguing retrospective study (MJ Casanova et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26: 606-16, editorial 617-18) examines a large cohort (n=1122) who received either a 2nd or 3rd anti-TNF agent.  This relied on the ENEIDA registry which is a prospectively maintained registry from Spain with 11,866 patients. In this study, clinical remission was gauged with a Harvey Bradshaw Index score of ≤4 in Crohn’s disease (CD) or a partial Mayo score of ≤2 in ulcerative colitis (UC).

Key findings:

  • 45% of patients achieved remission with the second anti-TNF at 12 weeks (short-term); loss of response was 19% per patient-year subsequently. Patients with intolerance to the first drug had higher remission rates compared to those who switched due to secondary failure (52% vs 42%) or primary failure (52% vs 39%).
  • Among the 45% who responded to a second anti-TNF agent, 77% maintained remission at 1 year following switch.
  • There was similar initial response to a second anti-TNF among patients with CD and UC: 46% vs 41%, though patients with UC were more likely to lose efficacy.
  • Combination therapy was associated with a higher likelihood of failure, HR 2.4 (possibly as an indicator of more aggressive disease)
  • Among the 71 patients who progressed to a 3rd anti-TNF agent, 55% achieved remission at 12 weeks. 

Discussion:

  • The authors in their discussion not that “primary failure is considered a class effect phenomenon…However, our results indicate that remission may still be achieved with a second anti-TNF in approximately 50% of patients.”
  • The editorial notes that the results need to be interpreted with caution.  Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) which is not incorporated in this study is crucial in optimizing response and switching.  “Importantly, nearly two-thirds of patients with therapeutic drug levels in the study form the Mayo Clinic had no active inflammation.  Thus, a change in therapy would be inappropriate in this population.”

My take: This study indicates that a 2nd anti-TNF agent can be effective in those who do not respond to a 1st.  At the same time, careful assessment including TDM is needed when changing agents, especially in view of the limited number of effective therapies.

Related blog posts:

From Atlanta Botanical Garden

Video for Patients: Benefits and Risks of IBD Treatment & Risks of Untreated IBD

A recent study (NE Newman, KL Williams, BJ Zikmunde-Fisher, J Adler. JPGN 2020;70: e33-36) highlights work to communicate the benefits and risks of the treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) along with the risks of untreated IBD.  “We developed a simple video aid to illustrate competing risks associated with medications and underling disease in context of inflammatory bowel disease…Those who viewed the video aid had more realistic perceptions than those who did not view it.”

Here is a link to the ~13 minute online video: IBD: Risk of Disease and Treatments

Overall, the presentation is very helpful and thoughtful.  I think this would be an excellent overview for families.  For practitioners, a few points that could benefit from some nuance are noted below some screenshots.  It is worth stating that the authors had started this project a few years ago and some of the points below are related to more information that has emerged.

In the section of treatment benefits (above), the presentation suggests that thiopurines (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine) and methotrexate both are effective in about 50%; this is probably an overestimate; in addition, methotrexate as monotherapy is definitely less effective (if effective at all) for ulcerative colitis .  Also, it would be worthwhile to indicate that anti-TNF monotherapy with therapeutic drug monitoring may help achieve similar benefits as dual therapy.

In the section of colon cancer, the authors provide useful data that current treatments lower this risk substantially.  It is notable that more recent reports suggest that there have been improvements in the rates of colon cancer associated with IBD.

Overall, the section on lymphoma is very good.

In the section on other complications, the presentation suggests that there may be impaired wound-healing with anti-TNFs.  I think this risk is overstated in this slide. Also, I think the risk of severe infection with thiopurines is a little bit higher than stated; though, this can be mitigated with careful monitoring.

I think this summary slide could be improved by noting that the overall risk of serious cancers is likely lowered by treating IBD.  Since colon cancer is a fairly common cancer and IBD treatment reduces the risk, this likely outweighs the increased risk of other cancers (eg. lymphoma) which are much less common.

Another link to video: https://tinyurl.com/IBDTreatments

Related posts:

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.

IBD Updates December 2019

SR Gupta et al. JPGN 2019; 69: 544-50.  This article reports on preliminary experience in 54 children who received external (non-hospital) infliximab infusions. The average age was 17.6 years. The authors noted no serious safety concerns.  Prior to arranging these infusions, the authors insisted on the following:

  • Infusion services had to guarantee pediatric trained nurses with PALS certification
  • Emergency medications had to be available
  • A plan for emergency communication was arranged
  • Postinfusion communication would occur with each infusion

BN Limketkai et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2019; 25: 1828-37.  This study, using Truven Health MarketScan database (2007-16) reviewed proactive or reactive mucosal monitoring after biologic initiation in IBD.  Early (< 6 months) proactive monitoring (88% endoscopy-based) was performed in 11% (n=2195/19,899) of patients with Crohn’s and 12.8% (925/7247) of patients with ulcerative colitis.

  • “Early proactive monitoring was associated with a reduction in disease-related complications for CD (aHR 0.90) and UC (aHR 0.87) and predominantly driven by a reduction in corticosteroid use.”
  • Another interesting finding was that ~40% of patients had biologic therapy initiated without assessment of mucosal disease activity within 6 months.
  • The authors state that disease monitoring is typically more useful in CD than UC because with the latter, cessation of bleeding and diarrhea appear to be adequate surrogates.
  • This study was not able to assess whether a biomarker like fecal calprotectin would be suitable due to its low utilization.

RZ Cohen, BT Schoen, S Kugathasan, CG Sauer. JPGN 2019; 69: 551-6. In this chart review, the authors identified anti-drug antibodies (ADA) in 24.8% (n=58) of patients undergoing therapeutic drug monitoring (n=234) with both infliximab and adalimumab.  54% of this group had antibody suppression with dose optimization. Of note, 37 patients had detectable ADA at time of initial drug monitoring. Dose optimization was 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks with infliximab or 40 mg weekly with adalimumab. Patients who were switched to a second anti-TNF agent (n=23) were not more likely to develop ADA to the second agent (small sample size). Also, the authors caution that in the five patients with ADA levels (>10 U/mL), dose optimization failed and patients required a therapeutic switch. My take: This study provides some useful information about the frequency of ADA.  My view is that the actual drug level is more critical than the presence of ADA; though, the presence of high ADA often precludes the ability to deliver a therapeutic drug level.

Related blog posts:

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.

CCFA: Updates in IBD Conference (part 1)

My notes from a recent Georgia Chapter of CCFA’s conference. There could be errors of omission, transcription and/or errors in context based on my understanding.

Adam Cheifetz, MD Harvard School of Medicine

Optimizing IBD Treatments

  • Earlier treatment with effective therapies
  • Utilizing therapeutic drug monitoring

Goals are clinical and endoscopic remission

  • Imaging if not visible on endoscopy
  • Biomarker remission -adjunctive goal
  • Symptoms and endoscopy do not have good correlation in Crohn’s disease
  • Endoscopic healing associated with better outcomes
  • Treatment –>assessment –> adjust treatment if goal is not met

Biologic Agents:

  • First agent works best; TNF-exposed patients do not respond as well as TNF-naive patients to subsequent biologic
  • High rate of secondary loss of response

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring:

  • Combination therapy in Sonic study was associated with higher infliximab levels. It appears that optimized monotherapy is as effective as combination therapy (Colombel study).
  • Fistula treatment requires higher biologic levels
  • Lower biologic drug levels associated with development of antidrug antibodies
  • Proactive monitoring –recommended
  • Both infliximab and adalimumab are frequently underdosed, especially in pediatrics –>another reason for proactive monitoring
  • If sicker patients, consider checking TDM at week 10; less sick patients, reasonable to consider TDM at week 14

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.