Tag Archives: Methotrexate

Quality improvement and better outcomes in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Posted on by

More information on outcomes and quality improvement (QI) efforts are available from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (JPGN 2012; 55: 679-88).  The QI efforts at Cincinnati are part of a broader effort in QI in pediatric IBD that has been discussed on a previous post (see below).

Our group has rejoined Improve Care Now (ICN) and I look forward to gaining more first hand experience.  Some of the ICN target goals:

  • 80% remission rate among each center and sustained remission rate of 45%
  • 76% steroid-free remission
  • 90% checking TPMT if using thiopurine
  • 95% checking PPD/chest xray if using biologic therapy
  • 95% using accepted methotrexate dosing

As I look at these goals, I wonder whether the remission rate is feasible and about the variation in different centers. For example, among the groups with >75% enrollment of their patients, one center reports a 89% remission rate and another center 64% remission rate.  Given the limited number of therapeutic agents, how could there be such a difference?  Some explanations could include variation in the use of more potent biologic agents as well as capturing/assuring followup of more patients who are doing well.

Given this backdrop, I looked at this most recent publication to learn how their QI practices could translate into better care for my patients.

In this retrospective chart review study of 505 patients, who were followed from 2007-2010 at the IBD center, the remission rate increased from 59% to 76%.  The data were captured prospectively.  This corresponded to improved patient global assessment (>7) from 69% to 80%.  Repeated steroid use dropped from 17% to 10%.  Vitamin D (25-OH D) improved and this also correlated with quiescent disease.

Remission rates were defined by a pediatric Crohn clinical disease index, the sPCDAI, or PUCAI for Ulcerative colitis.

Key observations:

  • There was a trend towards increased use of anti-TNFα therapy (along with decreased use of 6-mercaptopurine) during the study period, but this did not reach statistical significance. No statistical difference was identified in the use of any major IBD medication class.
  • Despite target goals, the only drug class with a statistically significant change in dosing was 5-ASA (from 42 mg/kg to 50 mg/kg).
  • Fecal calprotectin monitoring increased.  The QI team recommended that IBD patients with ‘inactive’ disease have a fecal calprotectin measured every 6 months.  Those with elevated values had therapeutic drug monitoring implemented.  “Fecal calprotectin >400 μg/g is associated with a higher chance of relapse in a pediatric cohort.”
  • Starting in 2009, increased vitamin D monitoring was implemented (every 6 months).  In patients with a serum 25-OHD level < 30 ng/mL, treatment with 50,000 units weekly (for 6-8 weeks) was recommended (8000 units if weight <20 kg).  Once serum 25-OHD was >30 ng/mL, patients were maintained on monthly dosing.
  • Preclinic planning also increased and corresponded to improved remission rates which were 67% in 2009 and 76% in 2010.
  • The authors conclude: “Our results show that significant improvement in patient outcomes were achieved following QI efforts that did not rely on new medications or therapies, rather through initiating novel care processes and standardization of care.”

I think this conclusion is misleading.  First of all, as the authors point out, they did change their therapeutic approach.  They started vitamin D in more patients, used anti-TNFα therapy in more patients, and increased dosing of 5-ASA agents.  Other gains in remission rate could have been related to improved followup of patients who were doing well.

Despite my skepticism about the conclusion, I think the overall achievements are laudable.  Decreasing variation of care and assuring that all patients receive the best care possible with our diagnostic tests and current therapies is certainly worthwhile.  When patient care is studied carefully, this makes sure that “standard” practice like checking TPMT status before thiopurine use, checking PPDs before anti-TNFα therapy, and using optimal drug dosing occur in virtually all patients.

Developing a checklist for each patient can help assure that best practices occur.  For those with electronic medical records, this may mean putting in more “hard stops.”  A hard stop means the physician cannot sign out of a chart without paying attention to a specific detail.  For example, if a physician orders methotrexate, a “hard stop” could come up if the dosing was not in the typical target range.

Useful link:

Link for disease classification (quiescent, mild, moderate, severe):

http://links.lww.com/MPG/A129

Related blog entries:

Adding Methotrexate to anti-TNF therapy

Posted on by

While new therapies are emerging for inflammatory bowel disease as noted in recent blog entries on Vedolizumab and Tofacitinib, many patients have refractory disease and require management with available treatments.  One strategy in this situation has been to add methotrexate (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18: 1488-92).

This case series from the Mayo clinic reported their experience with 14 pediatric Crohn’s patients (10 males) who had methotrexate added to anti-TNF therapy.

Clinical remission was achieved in 50% (PCDAI <15) within 6 weeks with methotrexate (dose: 15 mg/meter squared –average dose 17.5mg SC weekly).  All patients received folate supplementation (1 mg daily). In this study, the average duration of methotrexate use was only 8.2 months & average followup was only 10 months.

Discussion notes that prior to methotrexate all patients had active disease despite anti-TNF therapy & most had received thiopurines. Most patients tolerated methotrexate. Four patients had Clostridium difficile infection; two cases were de novo.  Even after treatment of the infection, patients with Clostridium difficile were refractory to methotrexate treatment.

Of the initial 14 patients, two patients had severe nausea; this resulted in medication discontinuation in one patient and dose reduction in another patient.  No liver or kidney toxicity was identified.

Patients who did not respond to methotrexate, subsequent care including the following: three had surgery, one received tacrolimus/corticosteroids, one received natalizumab, one received certolizumab, and one received adalimumab/corticosteroids (while awaiting screening for certolizumab).

A prospective study of methotrexate is needed to confirm the its effectiveness in refractory Crohn’s and to determine long-term safety and efficacy.

Patient information on methotrexate (from my office website):  Methotrexate

Related blog entries:

Drug levels for inflammatory bowel disease

Methotrexate and liver toxicity

Additional methotrexate references:

-IBD 2011; 17: 2521. Methotrexate therapy: ~25% remission at 1yr, 16% at 2yrs.. n=93.
-JPGN 2011;53: 389. n=64. Supports use of zofran for 1st few months to prevent nausea.
-JPGN 2010; 51: 714. Use of MTX after thiopurines. n=27. 48% in remission at 6 months.
-JPGN 2009; 48: 526. Use in pediatric CD, n=25. 64% response

Drug levels for inflammatory bowel disease

Posted on by

In many conditions, drug levels are helpful to make sure the patient receives an adequate dose for the indication.  When we treat infections or seizures, drug levels predict the effectiveness of the medication and allow dosing adjustments to improve responses as well as to lower toxicity. Drug levels are helpful in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well.  Drug levels may help with thiopurine dosing and with infliximab (IFX) dosing.

Infliximab (IFX) levels can guide therapy (Scand J Gastroeneterol 2011; 46: 310-18). This study examined 106 patients (85 with CD and 21 with UC) over a ten-year period. In this cohort, patients received concurrent hydrocortisone, acetaminophen, and cetirizine to prevent acute reactions and to try to limit anti-infliximab antibodies (ATI), also called anti-human antichimeric antibodies (HACA).  Infusion intervals ranged from 4-12 weeks.

69% of Crohn’s patients maintained response to IFX and 48% of UC patients.  Infliximab trough levels were significantly increased among patients who maintained their response.  A cutoff value of 0.5 μg/mL was defined as clinically relevant for IFX trough concentrations for Crohn’s patients and for UC the cutoff was 0.8 μg/mL .  Trough levels below this cutoff were 86% sensitive and 85% specific for identifying loss of response.  The overall accuracy for the test was 87% in identifying loss of response.

Also, ATIs were significantly higher in CD patients who had lost response to infliximab.  Patients who had been “re-treated,” were significantly more likely to have developed ATIs.  “Re-treated” was defined as having interruption of IFX treatment more than 6 months.

These specific cutoff values apply to the radioimmunoassay technique for measuring IFX and ATI.  These values may not extrapolate to ELISA assays.  At the same time, the findings suggest a practical approach in patients with symptoms while receiving IFX:

  • Check IFX level (at trough or at 4 weeks)
  • If low level and no ATI, likely to respond to dose escalation
  • If low level but positive for ATI, not likely to respond to dose escalation
  • Do not assume symptoms are due to drug failure; reassess with imaging &/or scope. Consider alternate etiologies (eg infections, stricture, celiac, IBS).
  • Cotherapy with an immunomodulator reduces ATIs and boosts levels of IFX.
More usage of IFX and ATI levels is likely; however, cost issues preclude frequent measurements.

Additional references:

  • Only one chance to make first impression.  Previous blog entry on use of infliximab.
  • -Clin Gastro & Hepatology 2011; 9: 395. Do not assume symptoms are due to drug failure -reassess with imaging &/or scope. Consider alternate etiologies (eg infections, stricture, celiac, IBS). Check IFX level –if >12 @ 4weeks or >1.4 mcg/mL at trough –>predicts good response.  If +HACA, ~90% response with alternative TNF.  In those with low level, 86% responded to dose escalation.
  • -DDW 2011, Abstract #772. If loss of response to IFX, **confirm active dz (labs, scope) & not due to CDT. **check HACA –if +, only 10-20% chance of responding to dose escalation; better chance of responding to similar agent **check IFX week 4 level, if low (& neg HACA) then 90% respond to dose escalation
  • -NEJM 2010; 362:1383-1395. SONIC study.  Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease who were treated with infliximab plus azathioprine or infliximab monotherapy were more likely to have a corticosteroid-free clinical remission than those receiving azathioprine monotherapy.
  • -Gut 2010; 59: 49-54. Trough IFX levels in UC. n=115. Antibody status can only be measured at trough levels. Undetectable trough level (<1.4 mcg/mL) associated with lower remission (15% vs 69%) and lower endoscopic response (28% vs 76%) & higher colectomy rate (55% vs. 7%).
  • -Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 344 (review of above Gut article). Similar to Crohn’s disease: 82% remission with detectable trough vs 6% w/o detectable level.
  • –Lancet 354 (9194): 1932–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05246-0. PMID 10622295.”Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. ATTRACT Study Group”.
  • -Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1133-39. If lack/loss of response, may need dose escalation with humira or Cimzia (q2weeks):
  • -IBD 2011; 17: 141-51. Loss of response to biologics.
  • -Gastro & Hep 2008; 4: 12. “primary nonresponse can be determined after 2 doses” in table reiterating AGA consensus guidelines. 85% of responders show benefit by 2weeks & all responders benefit c/in 6 weeks (Am J Gastro 2001; 96: S303). Worsening Sx despite infliximab indicates need to look for stricture, infxn, etc.
  • -Clin Gastro & Hep 2006; 4: 1248. Clinical remission associated with measurable infliximab troughs; thus, if no measurable trough, increase dose or shorten interval. If level detected & no response, unlikely to respnd to TNF class. Also, concurrent immunomodulators were not helpful.
  • -Am J Gastro 2010; 105: 2617 (Oussalah et al). 2-3yrs 41% IFX failure in UC. withdrawal of AZA increase loss of response –7x more likely
  • -Am J Gastro ; 105: 1133-40. n=155. 23% ATI -92% respond to med change, 17% respond to dose change. Level <12 @ 4weeks, 86% respond to dose change
  • -Gut 2010; 59: 1363. n=121. Co-treatment helped reduce complications & flares relative to monotherapy (& azathioprine appeared to be more effective than methotrexate).

Methotrexate and liver toxicity

Posted on by

There are drawbacks with all of the therapies for inflammatory bowel disease; however, usually the inflammatory bowel disease is worse than any of the medications. One of the therapies that  has started to see increased usage in Crohn’s disease is methotrexate (MTX), both as an alternative to thiopurines and as an adjunct to Remicade.  There are a number of side effects; a patient handout is available at the following: http://www.ccdhc.org/diseases/MethotrexateLetter.pdf

One of the concerns with MTX has been liver toxicity, in part because of descriptions in the rheumatology literature with long-term usage.  In Crohn’s disease patients, it appears that the risk is much lower (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18: 359-67).  This study found 13 trials for their meta-analysis.  A total of 632 participants were included: 373 MTX, 131 thiopurines, 128 placebo.  In the MTX group, elevated hepatic aminotransferases occurred in 1.4 per 100 person-months.  The rate of elevation more than 2-fold the upper limit of normal was 0.9 per 100 person-months.  Thus, of the initial 373 patients, 39 had an abnormal aminotransferase.  26 of these 39 had spontaneous resolution, 3 improved with dose reduction & 10 withdrew from MTX treatment (0.8 per 100 person-months).  Seven of these withdrawals were from one of the earlier studies (Feagan et al. NEJM 1995; 332: 292-97). Besides the low likelihood of needing to stop MTX due to liver toxicity, the other observation was that the liver toxicity was mostly dependent on the dose; therefore, dosage reduction would likely be effective if needed.

In my practice, when considering MTX treatment, I usually recommend the following:

  • Monitoring: Baseline: CXR, CBC, Amylase, Renal, LFTs, urine HCG & then Q2-4 weeks initially, then Q3months
  • Give Folate during therapy.
  • Use zofran if needed for nausea
  • Avoid NSAIDs during treatment due to renal toxicity
  • Contraindicated with pregnancy (MTX=teratogen) -females should see gynecology
  • Families warned in writing that this medication is given once a week; more often can be deadly

Additional references:

  • -IBD 2011; 17: 2521. ~25% remission at 1yr, 16% at 2yrs.. n=93.
  • -JPGN 2011;53: 389. n=64. Supports use of zofran for 1st few months to prevent nausea.
  • -JPGN 2010; 51: 714. Use of MTX after thiopurines. n=27. 48% in remission at 6 months.
  • -JPGN 2009; 48: 526. Use in pediatric CD, n=25. 64% response
  • -JPGN 2009; 48 suppl 2: S111. MTX may be effective for UC.
  • -NEJM 2008; 359: 2790. Similar safety of AZA and MTX in vasculitis patients. AZA may be safer.
  • -IBD 2008; 14: 756. MTX in Crohn’s. n=39. 71% remission (20% steroid-free).
  • -J Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 2007; 32: 327-31.
  • -Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61: 1380-84. review of MTX errors -FDA reported
  • http://www.npsa.nhs.uk/patientsafety/alerrts-and-directives/alerts/oral-methotrexate/
  • -Am J Gastro 2007; 102: 2804-2812. n=60 pediatric patients. ~42% in remission with MTX & ~50% improved. 13% (8) had to stop due to increased LFTs or sepsis.
  • -IBD 2006; 12: 1053. n=61. MTX for AZA nonresponders/breakthroughs: 80% with improvement/ 45% with long-term response; 10% discontinued due to side effects. Steroids stopped in 36.
  • -JPGN 2005; 40: 445. Oral MTX works as well as IM/SC.
  • -JPGN 2003; 37: 392 (194A) 0.4 mg/kg/weekly. 91% response at 2 mo, most still needed remicade
  • -Gastroenterology 2003; 124: suppl 1, A-41 (305) 11/12 responded – able to stop remicade
  • -Feagan et al. NEJM 1995; 332: 292-97.
  • -J Pediatr 1999: 134: 47. Hepatotoxic risk factors. (enzymes & obesity). Consider bx if serial enzymes increased >40% of the time over 1 year
  • -Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 2226.