Konstantinos Papamichael1, Karen A Chachu2, Ravy K Vajravelu3, Byron P Vaughn4, Josephine Ni3, Mark T Osterman3, Adam S Cheifetz5. 1. Center for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Division of Gastroenterology, Beth-Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 5. Center for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Division of Gastroenterology, Beth-Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: acheifet@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Monitoring serum concentrations of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients receiving these drugs as treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), also called therapeutic drug monitoring, is performed either after patient loss of response (reactive drug monitoring) or in patients in clinical remission in which the drug is titrated to a target concentration (proactive drug monitoring). We compared long-term outcomes of patients with IBD undergoing proactive vs reactive monitoring of serum concentrations of infliximab. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of 264 consecutive patients with IBD (167 with Crohn's disease) receiving infliximab maintenance therapy. The subjects received proactive (n = 130) or reactive (n = 134) drug monitoring, based on measurements of first infliximab concentration and antibodies to infliximab, from September 2006 to January 2015; they were followed through December 2015 (median time of 2.4 years). We analyzed time to treatment failure, first IBD-related surgery or hospitalization, serious infusion reaction, and detection of antibodies to infliximab. Treatment failure was defined as drug discontinuation for loss of response or serious adverse event, or need for surgery. RESULTS: Multiple Cox regression analysis independently associated proactive drug monitoring, compared with reactive monitoring, with reduced risk for treatment failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.27; P < .001), IBD-related surgery (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.80; P = .017), IBD-related hospitalization (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33; P < .001), antibodies to infliximab (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .025), and serious infusion reaction (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.78; P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of patients with IBD receiving proactive vs reactive monitoring of serum concentration of infliximab, proactive monitoring was associated with better clinical outcomes, including greater drug durability, less need for IBD-related surgery or hospitalization, and lower risk of antibodies to infliximab or serious infusion reactions.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Monitoring serum concentrations of tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients receiving these drugs as treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), also called therapeutic drug monitoring, is performed either after patient loss of response (reactive drug monitoring) or in patients in clinical remission in which the drug is titrated to a target concentration (proactive drug monitoring). We compared long-term outcomes of patients with IBD undergoing proactive vs reactive monitoring of serum concentrations of infliximab. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of 264 consecutive patients with IBD (167 with Crohn's disease) receiving infliximab maintenance therapy. The subjects received proactive (n = 130) or reactive (n = 134) drug monitoring, based on measurements of first infliximab concentration and antibodies to infliximab, from September 2006 to January 2015; they were followed through December 2015 (median time of 2.4 years). We analyzed time to treatment failure, first IBD-related surgery or hospitalization, serious infusion reaction, and detection of antibodies to infliximab. Treatment failure was defined as drug discontinuation for loss of response or serious adverse event, or need for surgery. RESULTS: Multiple Cox regression analysis independently associated proactive drug monitoring, compared with reactive monitoring, with reduced risk for treatment failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.27; P < .001), IBD-related surgery (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.80; P = .017), IBD-related hospitalization (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.07-0.33; P < .001), antibodies to infliximab (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .025), and serious infusion reaction (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.78; P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of patients with IBD receiving proactive vs reactive monitoring of serum concentration of infliximab, proactive monitoring was associated with better clinical outcomes, including greater drug durability, less need for IBD-related surgery or hospitalization, and lower risk of antibodies to infliximab or serious infusion reactions.
Authors: Margot Taks; Phillipe A R R Pijls; Luc J J Derijks; Robert Ten Broeke; Rene J Grouls; Joyce Curvers; Lennard P L Gilissen Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Niels Vande Casteele; Ann Gils; Sharat Singh; Linda Ohrmund; Scott Hauenstein; Paul Rutgeerts; Séverine Vermeire Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Casper Steenholdt; Klaus Bendtzen; Jørn Brynskov; Ole Ø Thomsen; Mark A Ainsworth Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Casper Steenholdt; Jørn Brynskov; Ole Ø Thomsen; Lars K Munck; Jan Fallingborg; Lisbet A Christensen; Gitte Pedersen; Jens Kjeldsen; Bent A Jacobsen; Anne Sophie Oxholm; Jakob Kjellberg; Klaus Bendtzen; Mark A Ainsworth Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Gert Van Assche; Geert D'Haens; Maja Noman; Séverine Vermeire; Martin Hiele; Katrien Asnong; Joris Arts; Andre D'Hoore; Freddy Penninckx; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Fernando S Velayos; James G Kahn; William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Freddy Cornillie; Stephen B Hanauer; Robert H Diamond; Jianping Wang; Kezhen L Tang; Zhenhua Xu; Paul Rutgeerts; Séverine Vermeire Journal: Gut Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Konstantinos Papamichael; Adam S Cheifetz; Gil Y Melmed; Peter M Irving; Niels Vande Casteele; Patricia L Kozuch; Laura E Raffals; Leonard Baidoo; Brian Bressler; Shane M Devlin; Jennifer Jones; Gilaad G Kaplan; Miles P Sparrow; Fernando S Velayos; Thomas Ullman; Corey A Siegel Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: José Germán Sánchez-Hernández; Noemí Rebollo; Ana Martin-Suarez; M Victoria Calvo; Fernando Muñoz Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Diana M Negoescu; Eva A Enns; Brooke Swanhorst; Bonnie Baumgartner; James P Campbell; Mark T Osterman; Konstantinos Papamichael; Adam S Cheifetz; Byron P Vaughn Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 5.325