M G Ward1,2,3, P A Thwaites1, L Beswick2, J Hogg1, G Rosella1, D Van Langenberg2,3, J Reynolds3, P R Gibson1,3, M P Sparrow1,3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether therapeutic drug monitoring for adalimumab needs to be performed at trough has not been defined. AIM: To determine intra-patient adalimumab drug-level variation and to identify modulating patient and disease factors. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, adult patients with Crohn's disease established on maintenance adalimumab had drug levels measured repeatedly according to pre-defined schedules (visit 1: day 4-6, visit 2: day 7-9, trough: day 13-14) across two consecutive fortnightly cycles. Disease activity was assessed using Harvey-Bradshaw Index, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin. For this analysis, trough levels ≥4.9 μg/mL were considered therapeutic. RESULTS: Nineteen patients underwent 111 evaluations. Mean intra-patient drug levels from paired visits between cycles did not differ (visit1 cycle1: 4.81, cycle2: 5.21 μg/mL, P = 0.24, visit2 cycle1: 4.86, cycle2: 4.82, P = 0.91 and trough cycle1: 3.95, cycle2: 3.95, P = 0.99), irrespective of disease activity. Drug levels were stable over the first 9 days (visit 1-2), but declined to trough by a mean 1.06 and 0.89 μg/mL between visit 1 or 2, respectively (P < 0.001). Models using nontemporal factors (smoking, syringe delivery device) and levels at earlier visits accounted for 66-80% of the variance in trough levels. On receiver-operating curve analysis, thresholds identified in the first 9 days that predicted a therapeutic trough level were similar to the trough threshold itself, with high sensitivity but modest specificity. CONCLUSION: While therapeutic drug monitoring should be performed at trough, a drug level ≥4.9 μg/mL obtained during the first 9 days predicts a therapeutic trough drug level with reasonable confidence.
BACKGROUND: Whether therapeutic drug monitoring for adalimumab needs to be performed at trough has not been defined. AIM: To determine intra-patientadalimumab drug-level variation and to identify modulating patient and disease factors. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, adult patients with Crohn's disease established on maintenance adalimumab had drug levels measured repeatedly according to pre-defined schedules (visit 1: day 4-6, visit 2: day 7-9, trough: day 13-14) across two consecutive fortnightly cycles. Disease activity was assessed using Harvey-Bradshaw Index, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin. For this analysis, trough levels ≥4.9 μg/mL were considered therapeutic. RESULTS: Nineteen patients underwent 111 evaluations. Mean intra-patient drug levels from paired visits between cycles did not differ (visit1 cycle1: 4.81, cycle2: 5.21 μg/mL, P = 0.24, visit2 cycle1: 4.86, cycle2: 4.82, P = 0.91 and trough cycle1: 3.95, cycle2: 3.95, P = 0.99), irrespective of disease activity. Drug levels were stable over the first 9 days (visit 1-2), but declined to trough by a mean 1.06 and 0.89 μg/mL between visit 1 or 2, respectively (P < 0.001). Models using nontemporal factors (smoking, syringe delivery device) and levels at earlier visits accounted for 66-80% of the variance in trough levels. On receiver-operating curve analysis, thresholds identified in the first 9 days that predicted a therapeutic trough level were similar to the trough threshold itself, with high sensitivity but modest specificity. CONCLUSION: While therapeutic drug monitoring should be performed at trough, a drug level ≥4.9 μg/mL obtained during the first 9 days predicts a therapeutic trough drug level with reasonable confidence.
Authors: Lorant Gonczi; Zsuzsanna Kurti; Mariann Rutka; Zsuzsanna Vegh; Klaudia Farkas; Barbara D Lovasz; Petra A Golovics; Krisztina B Gecse; Balazs Szalay; Tamas Molnar; Peter L Lakatos Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Cátia Rocha; Joana Afonso; Paula Lago; Bruno Arroja; Ana I Vieira; Claudia C Dias; Fernando Magro Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Mark Samaan; Samantha Campbell; Georgina Cunningham; Aravind Gokul Tamilarasan; Peter M Irving; Sara McCartney Journal: F1000Res Date: 2019-07-29
Authors: Jonathan Kay; Vibeke Strand; Alan Menter; Stanley Cohen; Alice Gottlieb; Stephen Hanauer; Sravan Kumar Eduru; Susanne Buschke; Benjamin Lang; Karl-Heinz Liesenfeld; Jennifer Schaible; Dorothy McCabe Journal: Am J Clin Dermatol Date: 2022-08-07 Impact factor: 6.233
Authors: H Nakase; S Motoya; T Matsumoto; K Watanabe; T Hisamatsu; N Yoshimura; T Ishida; S Kato; T Nakagawa; M Esaki; M Nagahori; T Matsui; Y Naito; T Kanai; Y Suzuki; M Nojima; M Watanabe; T Hibi Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Arne Carlsen; Roald Omdal; Lars Karlsen; Jan Terje Kvaløy; Lars Aabakken; Øyvind Steinsbø; Nils Bolstad; David Warren; Knut Erik Aslaksen Lundin; Tore Grimstad Journal: JGH Open Date: 2019-10-06
Authors: Scott D Lee; Raina Shivashankar; Daniel Quirk; Haiying Zhang; Jean-Baptiste Telliez; John Andrews; Amy Marren; Arnab Mukherjee; Edward V Loftus Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.174
Authors: Niels Vande Casteele; Brian G Feagan; Douglas C Wolf; Anca Pop; Mohamed Yassine; Sara N Horst; Timothy E Ritter; William J Sandborn Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 5.325