-
Gut Feb 2023There are numerous biological therapies and small molecules licensed for luminal Crohn's disease (CD), but these are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
There are numerous biological therapies and small molecules licensed for luminal Crohn's disease (CD), but these are often studied in placebo-controlled trials, meaning relative efficacy is uncertain. We examined this in a network meta-analysis.
DESIGN
We searched the literature to 1 July 2022, judging efficacy according to induction of clinical remission, clinical response and maintenance of clinical remission, and according to previous exposure or non-exposure to biologics. We used a random effects model and reported data as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs, ranking drugs according to p-score.
RESULTS
We identified 25 induction of remission trials (8720 patients). Based on failure to achieve clinical remission, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first versus placebo (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79, p-score 0.95), with risankizumab 600 mg second and upadacitinib 45 mg once daily third. However, risankizumab 600 mg ranked first for clinical remission in biologic-naïve (RR=0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.85, p-score 0.78) and in biologic-exposed patients (RR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82, p-score 0.92). In 15 maintenance of remission trials (4016 patients), based on relapse of disease activity, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily ranked first (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, p-score 0.93) with adalimumab 40 mg weekly second, and infliximab 10 mg/kg 8-weekly third. Adalimumab 40 mg weekly ranked first in biologic-naïve patients (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.73, p-score 0.86), and vedolizumab 108 mg 2-weekly first in biologic-exposed (RR=0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86, p-score 0.82).
CONCLUSION
In a network meta-analysis, infliximab 5 mg/kg ranked first for induction of clinical remission in all patients with luminal CD, but risankizumab 600 mg was first in biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed patients. Upadacitinib 30 mg once daily ranked first for maintenance of remission.
Topics: Humans; Crohn Disease; Adalimumab; Infliximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Biological Therapy; Remission Induction
PubMed: 35907636
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328052 -
Gut and Liver Jan 2023Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a life-threatening medical emergency with considerable morbidity (30% to 40%). Patients with ASUC require hospitalization for... (Review)
Review
Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a life-threatening medical emergency with considerable morbidity (30% to 40%). Patients with ASUC require hospitalization for prompt medical treatment, and colectomy is considered if medical therapy fails. Corticosteroids remain the primary initial therapy, although one-third of patients do not respond to treatment. Clinical data have indicated that cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and infliximab can be used to treat patients with ASUC who do not respond to intravenous corticosteroids. The effectiveness and safety of sequential therapy have recently been reported; however, the data are not convincing. Importantly, timely decision-making with rescue therapy or surgical treatment is critical to manage ASUC without compromising the health or safety of the patients. In addition, risk stratification and the use of predictive clinical parameters have improved the clinical outcome.of ASUC. Multidisciplinary teams that include inflammatory bowel disease experts, colorectal surgeons, and other medical staff contribute to the better management of patients with ASUC. In this review, we introduce current evidence and present a clinical approach to manage ASUC.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Acute Disease; Infliximab; Cyclosporine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36375793
DOI: 10.5009/gnl220017 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Sep 2015Administration of infliximab is associated with a well-recognised risk of infusion reactions. Lack of a mechanism-based rationale for their prevention, and absence of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Administration of infliximab is associated with a well-recognised risk of infusion reactions. Lack of a mechanism-based rationale for their prevention, and absence of adequate and well-controlled studies, has led to the use of diverse empirical administration protocols. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the evidence behind the strategies for preventing infusion reactions to infliximab, and for controlling the reactions once they occur.
METHODS
We conducted extensive search of electronic databases of MEDLINE [PubMed] for reports that communicate various aspects of infusion reactions to infliximab in IBD patients.
RESULTS
We examined full texts of 105 potentially eligible articles. No randomised controlled trials that pre-defined infusion reaction as a primary outcome were found. Three RCTs evaluated infusion reactions as a secondary outcome; another four RCTs included infusion reactions in the safety evaluation analysis; and 62 additional studies focused on various aspects of mechanism/s, risk, primary and secondary preventive measures, and management algorithms. Seven studies were added by a manual search of reference lists of the relevant articles. A total of 76 original studies were included in quantitative analysis of the existing strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is still paucity of systematic and controlled data on the risk, prevention, and management of infusion reactions to infliximab. We present working algorithms based on systematic and extensive review of the available data. More randomised controlled trials are needed in order to investigate the efficacy of the proposed preventive and management algorithms.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab; Infusions, Intravenous
PubMed: 26092578
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv096 -
JAMA Dec 2021Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), consisting of individualized treatment based on scheduled assessments of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring vs Standard Therapy During Maintenance Infliximab Therapy on Disease Control in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), consisting of individualized treatment based on scheduled assessments of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an alternative to standard therapy to optimize efficacy and safety of infliximab and other biologic drugs. However, it remains unclear whether proactive TDM improves clinical outcomes during maintenance therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether proactive TDM during maintenance therapy with infliximab improves treatment efficacy by preventing disease worsening compared with standard infliximab therapy without TDM.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Randomized, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial including 458 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or psoriasis undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab in 20 Norwegian hospitals. Patients were recruited from June 7, 2017, to December 12, 2019. Final follow-up took place on December 14, 2020.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were randomized 1:1 to proactive TDM with dose and interval adjustments based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies (TDM group; n = 228) or to standard infliximab therapy without drug and antibody level monitoring (standard therapy group; n = 230).
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was sustained disease control without disease worsening, defined by disease-specific composite scores or consensus about disease worsening between patient and physician leading to a major change in treatment (switching to another biologic drug, adding an immunosuppressive drug including glucocorticoids, or increasing the infliximab dose), during the 52-week study period.
RESULTS
Among 458 randomized patients (mean age, 44.8 [SD, 14.3] years; 216 women [49.8%]), 454 received their randomly allocated intervention and were included in the full analysis set. The primary outcome of sustained disease control without disease worsening was observed in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group. The estimated adjusted difference was 17.6% (95% CI, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001) favoring TDM. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) and 142 patients (63%) in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab, proactive TDM was more effective than treatment without TDM in sustaining disease control without disease worsening. Further research is needed to compare proactive TDM with reactive TDM, to assess the effects on long-term disease complications, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074656.
Topics: Adult; Algorithms; Arthritis; Drug Monitoring; Female; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Psoriasis; Standard of Care; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 34932077
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.21316 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.
METHODS
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS
In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.
CONCLUSION
The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Ustekinumab; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Japan; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Biological Products; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 36884164
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01254-x -
Advances in Therapy May 2023Dose escalation is one of the treatment approaches studied and suggested in advanced therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dose escalation is one of the treatment approaches studied and suggested in advanced therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to identify and characterize the dosing escalation patterns of advanced therapies in CD and UC.
METHODS
Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2011 and October 2021 and limited to non-interventional studies in English language. Congress and bibliographic searches were also conducted. Articles were screened by two independent researchers. Dose escalation patterns were described and summarized considering the regional regulatory label recommendation (in North America [NA] or outside of North America [ONA]).
RESULTS
Among 3190 CD and 2116 UC articles identified in the Ovid searches, 100 CD and 54 UC studies were included in the SLR, with more studies conducted ONA. Most studies reported an initial maintenance dose pattern aligned with the lower starting dose per local regulatory label; however, several ONA studies (n = 13 out of 14) reported ustekinumab every 8 weeks as starting maintenance pattern in CD. In ONA studies, the median within-guideline escalation rates in CD and UC were 43% in ustekinumab (CD only), 33% and 32% for vedolizumab; 29% and 39% for adalimumab; and 14% and 10% for infliximab. Evidence regarding dose escalation patterns for tofacitinib, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab was limited. Some dose escalation patterns outside of label recommendations were observed including ustekinumab every 8 weeks to every 4 weeks and vedolizumab every 8 weeks to every 6 weeks.
CONCLUSION
Dose escalation strategies are widely documented in the literature. The reported dose escalation patterns and escalation rates vary by region and by CD and UC. Most escalation patterns reported were aligned with regulatory recommendations while some reported more diverse or aggressive dose escalation.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021289251.
Topics: Humans; Crohn Disease; Colitis, Ulcerative; Ustekinumab; Adalimumab; Infliximab
PubMed: 36930430
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02457-6 -
Arthritis Research & Therapy Nov 2019
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Etanercept; Humans; Infliximab; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 31718696
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-019-2028-2 -
BioDrugs : Clinical Immunotherapeutics,... Dec 2018PF-06438179/GP1111 (Zessly; Ixifi) [hereafter referred to as GP1111] is a biosimilar of the reference monoclonal anti-TNF-α antibody infliximab, and is approved in the... (Review)
Review
PF-06438179/GP1111 (Zessly; Ixifi) [hereafter referred to as GP1111] is a biosimilar of the reference monoclonal anti-TNF-α antibody infliximab, and is approved in the EU and USA for the same indications as the reference drug, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis (including paediatric ulcerative colitis in the EU), ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis; GP1111 is also approved in Japan. GP1111 has similar physicochemical characteristics and pharmacodynamic properties to those of reference infliximab, and the pharmacokinetic similarity of the agents has been shown in healthy volunteers and patients with moderate-to-severe RA despite methotrexate therapy. GP1111 demonstrated clinical efficacy equivalent to that of reference infliximab in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, despite methotrexate therapy, and was generally well tolerated in this population. The tolerability, immunogenicity and safety profiles of GP1111 were similar to those of reference infliximab, and switching from reference infliximab to GP1111 had no impact on safety, efficacy or immunogenicity. The role of reference infliximab in the management of autoimmune inflammatory conditions is well established and GP1111 provides an effective biosimilar alternative for patients requiring infliximab therapy.
Topics: Autoimmune Diseases; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Drug Substitution; Humans; Infliximab; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 30284704
DOI: 10.1007/s40259-018-0310-5 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Oct 2023Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) occurs in up to 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Therapeutic approaches have evolved during the past years with the... (Review)
Review
Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) occurs in up to 25% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Therapeutic approaches have evolved during the past years with the increasing bio exposure of admitted patients and the extension of the number of approved drugs for UC. In this review, we aimed to summarize the latest evidence in short-term and long-term medical strategies for ASUC. In addition to general principles such as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, screening for triggering and worsening factors and close monitoring, first-line therapy for ASUC remains intravenous corticosteroids. In naive patients, the optimum maintenance strategy for steroid-responding patients does not necessarily include biologics. Second-line therapy includes infliximab or calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) with similar short- and long-term colectomy rates. Despite its pathophysiological relevance, there is insufficient evidence to promote intensified induction with infliximab. Prior treatment exposure is a cornerstone for guiding therapeutic choice of short- and long-term therapies in the context of ASUC: in anti-TNF exposed patients, CNIs may be favored as a bridge therapy to vedolizumab or ustekinumab. Third-line salvage therapy could be a therapeutic option in selected patients referred to expert centers. Additionally, evidence is accumulating regarding the use of tofacitinib in ASUC.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Steroids
PubMed: 37475143
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12442 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2019Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease affecting multiple systems, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) plays a significant role in the initiation and... (Review)
Review
Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease affecting multiple systems, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) plays a significant role in the initiation and progression of the disease process. Psoriasis has a high prevalence rate in the Western world, especially in the USA and Australia; in China, although the prevalence rate is much lower, there is still a large number of patients suffering from psoriasis and its comorbidities. As TNF-α is thought to be crucial in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, specific therapy blocking TNF-α may be beneficial in the treatment of this disease. Infliximab, a murine-human monoclonal antibody, is highly efficacious in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, with better skin clearance and faster onset of action than topical medications such as methotrexate, narrow-band ultraviolet B, and calcipotriol. Lack of adherence to infliximab therapy is mainly due to loss of response (LOR) over time and adverse events, particularly because infusion reactions are usually encountered. Anti-infliximab antibody is thought to be responsible for the LOR and infusion reactions. However, the mechanism underlying the formation of anti-infliximab antibody and its side effects remains unclear. Further studies identifying patients at risk for LOR will probably help clinicians to select the right patients for anti-TNF-α therapy and to increase the durability of the treatment. This review discusses the efficacy of infliximab as demonstrated by various clinical trials, LOR to infliximab, combatting LOR, as well as the adverse events usually faced during the use of infliximab therapy and the infliximab biosimilar Remsima. We hope that we can discover a better way to use infliximab in the therapy of psoriasis from the current research data.
Topics: Animals; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Humans; Infliximab; Psoriasis
PubMed: 31413544
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S200147