Publications

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic Exocrine Insufficiency (PEI) is a possible cause of recurrent/persistent symptoms in celiac disease. Although pancreatic enzyme supplementation may be used to treat non-responsive celiac disease (NRCD) in clinical practice, clinical outcomes are variable and there is limited and low quality evidence to support this practice. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of pancreatic enzyme supplements (PES) for improvement of gastrointestinal symptoms in NRCD.

METHODS: Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial in adults with NRCD examining Celiac Disease-Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (CeD-GSRS) scores on PES (pancrelipase co-administered with omeprazole) versus placebo (omeprazole only) during a 10-day treatment period. The study was registered under the clinical trials registry (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ number, NCT02475369) on 18 Jun 2015.

RESULTS: Twelve participants (nine female) were included in the per-protocol analysis; one participant had low fecal elastase-1. Pancrelipase was not associated with significant change in CeD-GSRS compared to placebo (-0.03 versus -0.26; P = 0.366). There was a significant decrease in mean values of total CeD-GSRS scores (3.58 versus 2.90, P = 0.004), abdominal pain (2.92 versus 2.42, P = 0.009), and diarrhea sub-scores (3.44 versus 2.92, P = 0.037) during the run-in period with omeprazole.

CONCLUSION: In this prospective, cross-over randomized, placebo-controlled study, PES did not improve symptoms in patients with NRCD. It is unclear whether this is a trial effect or related to administration of omeprazole.

INTRODUCTION: There are only limited data regarding the role of therapeutic drug monitoring in fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD). We investigated the association between both induction and maintenance serum infliximab concentrations and favorable therapeutic outcomes in patients with fistulizing CD.

METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the ACCENT-II trial evaluating patients with fistulizing CD receiving induction (n = 282) and maintenance infliximab therapy (n = 139). Investigated therapeutic outcomes at both week 14 and week 54 included fistula response, complete fistula response, C-reactive protein (CRP) normalization (≤5 mg/L) in patients with an elevated baseline CRP, and a more stringent outcome of composite remission, defined as combined complete fistula response and CRP normalization. Associations between serum infliximab concentrations and outcomes were assessed by multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS: Higher week 14 infliximab concentrations were independently associated with week 14 fistula response (odds ratio [OR]: 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.32; P = 0.019), and composite remission (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.55-3.49; P < 0.001). Higher week 14 infliximab concentrations were also independently associated with week 54 composite remission (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.10-3.82; P = 0.023). Based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, week 14 infliximab concentrations thresholds with combined maximal sensitivity and specificity of ≥20.2 μg/mL at week 2, ≥15 μg/mL at week 6, and ≥7.2 μg/mL at week 14 were associated with week 14 composite remission.

DISCUSSION: Higher post-induction infliximab concentrations are associated with early and long-term favorable therapeutic outcomes in patients with fistulizing CD.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biologics is a rapidly evolving field. We aimed to provide a consensus statement regarding the clinical utility of TDM for biologics in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A modified Delphi method was applied to develop consensus statements. A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding TDM of biologic therapies in IBD, and 45 statements were subsequently formulated on the potential application of TDM in IBD. The statements, along with literature, were then presented to a panel of 10 gastroenterologists with expertise in IBD and TDM who anonymously rated them on a scale of 1-10 (1 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree). An expert consensus development meeting was held virtually to review, discuss, refine, and reformulate statements that did not meet criteria for agreement or that were ambiguous. During the meeting, additional statements were proposed. Panelists then confidentially revoted, and statements rated ≥7 by 80% or more of the participants were accepted. During the virtual meeting, 8 statements were reworded, 7 new statements were proposed, and 19 statements were rerated. Consensus was finally reached in 48/49 statements. The panel agreed that reactive TDM should be used for all biologics for both primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response. It was recommended that treatment discontinuation should not be considered for infliximab or adalimumab until a drug concentration of at least 10-15 μg/mL was achieved. Consensus was also achieved regarding the utility of proactive TDM for anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. It was recommended to perform proactive TDM after induction and at least once during maintenance. Consensus was achieved in most cases regarding the utility of TDM of biologics in IBD, specifically for reactive and proactive TDM of anti-tumor necrosis factors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely available for biologic therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We reviewed current data and provided expert opinion regarding the clinical utility of TDM for biologic therapies in IBD.

METHODS: We used a modified Delphi method to establish consensus. A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding the use of TDM of biologic therapy in IBD and presented to international IBD specialists. Subsequently, 28 statements on the application of TDM in clinical practice were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree) by each of the panellists. Statements were accepted if 80% or more of the participants agreed with a score ≥7. The remaining statements were discussed and revised based on the available evidence followed by a second round of voting.

RESULTS: The panel agreed on 24 (86%) statements. For anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, proactive TDM was found to be appropriate after induction and at least once during maintenance therapy, but this was not the case for the other biologics. Reactive TDM was appropriate for all agents both for primary non-response and secondary loss of response. The panellists also agreed on several statements regarding TDM and appropriate drug and anti-drug antibody (ADA) concentration thresholds for biologics in specific clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSION: Consensus was achieved towards the utility of TDM of biologics in IBD, particularly anti-TNF therapies. More data are needed especially on non-anti-TNF biologics to further define optimal drug concentration and ADA thresholds as these can vary depending on the therapeutic outcomes assessed.