Casper Steenholdt

Background: Antibodies (Abs) against adalimumab (ADL) have been associated with low ADL levels and treatment failure. Aim: To characterize the temporal characteristics of anti-ADL Ab appearance and possible disappearance, and determine the clinical significance on drug efficacy and disease course. Methods: Cohort study including inflammatory bowel disease patients in whom anti-ADL Abs had been assessed by radioimmunoassay (RIA) and, in case of disappearance, by enzyme immunoassay, and functional reporter gene assay. Results: Anti-ADL Abs were evaluated in 133 serum samples from 72 patients. Seventeen patients (24%) tested positive after median of 194 days, interquartile range of 66 to 361. The proportion with anti-ADL Abs was 22% after 1 year, and 32% from 21 months onwards. Anti-ADL Abs generally persisted at repeat assessments during continued ADL therapy (n=8). Disappearance of anti-ADL Abs during therapy (n=3) was presumably caused by methodological biases due to detection of nonfunctional nonpersistent anti-ADL Abs by RIA, or false-negative measurement at reassessment by RIA and reporter gene assay. Anti-ADL Abs appeared pharmacologically active as judged by a median ADL concentration below limit of detection versus 7.4 μg/mL in anti-ADL Ab-negative samples (PPP<0.0001). Conclusions: Abs against ADL appear in approximately one fourth of inflammatory bowel disease patients with decreasing frequency over time and usually within 1 year of therapy. Anti-ADL Abs generally persist during continued ADL therapy, and are associated with elimination of drug and treatment failure. Therefore, ADL cessation should be considered when anti-ADL Abs are detected and supported by clinical observations.

Objective. TNF inhibitors are effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Adalimumab (ADL), a fully human TNF inhibitor, is increasingly used both as primary anti-TNF agent and in patients switching from another TNF inhibitor due to treatment failure or side effects. This study investigated clinical outcomes of ADL therapy in a clinical setting where infliximab (IFX) had been used as first choice of anti-TNF agent, and followed by ADL as second line agent. Methods. Retrospective, observational single-center cohort study including all ulcerative colitis patients treated with ADL at a tertiary Danish inflammatory bowel disease center until 2014. Clinical outcomes were assessed after 12 and 52 weeks and classified according to physician’s global evaluation. Results. The study population comprised 33 patients. Main reasons for switching from IFX to ADL were infusion reactions to IFX (45%) or IFX treatment failure (33%). Short-term efficacy of ADL after 12 weeks revealed 15 patients (45%) with clinical response, and 6 (18%) in clinical remission. Twenty-three patients continued ADL for more than 12 weeks, and at long-term follow-up after 1 year of ADL treatment, eight of these (34%) had clinical response (24% of the entire cohort) and six (26%) were in clinical remission (18% of the entire cohort). A total of five patients (15%) were colectomized mainly due to primary ADL failure (four of five patients). Conclusion. Efficacy of ADL therapy in ulcerative colitis patients previously treated with IFX appears to be modest in clinical practice, and with higher colectomy rates than reported for anti-TNF-naive patients in the registration trials.

In Crohn’s disease patients failing infliximab therapy, interventions defined by an algorithm based on infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody measurements have proven more cost-effective than intensifying the infliximab regimen. This study investigated long-term economic outcomes at the week 20 follow-up study visit and after 1 year. Clinical outcomes were assessed at week 20. Follow-up from a 12-week, single-blind, clinical trial where patients with infliximab treatment failure were randomized to infliximab intensification (5 mg/kg every 4 weeks) (n = 36), or algorithm-defined interventions (n = 33). Accumulated costs, expressed as mean costs per patient, were based on the Danish National Patient Registry. At the scheduled week 20 follow-up study visit, response and remission rates were similar in all study subpopulations between patients treated by the algorithm or by infliximab intensification. However, the sum of healthcare costs related to Crohn’s disease was substantially lower (31 %) for patients randomized to algorithm-based interventions than infliximab intensification in the intention-to-treat population: $11,940 versus $17,236; p = 0.005. For per-protocol patients (n = 55), costs at the week 20 follow-up visit were even lower (49 %) in the algorithm group: $8,742 versus $17,236; p = 0.002. Figures were similar for patients having completed the 12-week trial as per protocol (50 % reduction in costs) (n = 45). Among patients continuing the allocated study intervention throughout the entire 20-week follow-up period (n = 29), costs were reduced by 60 % in algorithm-treated patients: $7,056 versus $17,776; p < 0.001. Cost-reduction percentages remained stable throughout one year. Economic benefit of algorithm-based interventions at infliximab failure is maintained throughout 1 year.

Intensification of the infliximab (IFX) regimen is recommended if the treatment effect is inadequate. However, the rationale for this is not well defined as the underlying mechanisms vary. The aim of this study was to explore the association between changes in serum IFX and anti-IFX antibodies (Abs) after IFX intensification and clinical outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial including 42 Crohn’s disease patients with IFX treatment failure, all treated with an intensified IFX regimen (5mg/kg every 4 week) for 12 weeks. Trough serum IFX and anti-IFX Ab concentrations were measured by a homogeneous mobility shift binding assay (HMSA) and a functional cell-based reporter gene assay (RGA) at treatment failure and the end of the trial. Twenty-one patients (50%) regained clinical response on the intensified IFX regimen. The increase in serum trough levels of IFX during treatment intensification was higher among responders than non-responders (RGA, 8.8 versus 3.0 μg/mL, p = 0.035; HMSA, 9.9 versus 4.7 μg/mL, p = 0.040), and differentiated patients by clinical outcome (RGA, area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.75 [0.53–0.97], p = 0.035; HMSA, AUC 0.74 [0.53–0.95], p = 0.042). All responders exhibited an IFX increase ≥2.6 μg/mL (sensitivity 100%, specificity 50%). Anti-IFX Abs detected by HMSA in 13 patients (32%) were often non-functional and became undetectable during IFX intensification. However, even functional anti-IFX Abs detected by RGA in six patients (15%) became undetectable. Increase in IFX levels following treatment intensification was associated with improved clinical outcomes, indicating insufficient drug levels in a subgroup of patients. Anti-IFX Abs may become undetectable during treatment intensification, suggesting lowered production or the formation of immune complexes.

Several techniques are used to measure infliximab (IFX) and anti-IFX antibodies (Abs) in Crohn's disease. The aim of this study was to compare different assays for this purpose. Fluid-phase radioimmunoassay (RIA), solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), reporter gene assay (RGA), and enzyme immunoassay (EIA; anti-IFX Ab only) were assessed. IFX was added to pooled serum from 13 patients with inactive Crohn's disease to yield concentrations of 0, 1, 3, and 9 µg/mL. Anti-IFX Abs were assessed in 6 patients. IFX assessments: RIA and RGA had lower limit of detection than ELISA (0.07 µg/mL and 0.13 versus 0.26). Maximal inaccuracies were 39%, 24%, and 23%. Imprecisions (coefficients of variation) were ≤20% within IFX concentrations between 1 and 9 µg/mL. All assays showed linear correlations (R = 0.97-0.99), but sample concentrations differed by up to 1.55 µg/mL for RIA and RGA, 1.41 µg/mL for ELISA and RIA, and 0.48 µg/mL for ELISA and RGA (P < 0.05). Anti-IFX Ab assessments: RGA gave highly reproducible results (coefficients of variation ≤ 7%) compared with all others (24%-26%). All assays had linear correlations (R = 0.71-0.93), except ELISA versus RGA and EIA. Assays disagreed on anti-IFX Ab titers with mean difference -420 (-1200 to 210) in RGA and EIA, and up to 4500 (-2700 to 11,800) in RIA and RGA. A contributing factor to these discrepancies was inability of ELISA to detect IgG4 anti-IFX Abs. Performances of assays for IFX and anti-IFX Abs are comparable. However, IFX concentrations and anti-IFX Ab titers show systematic differences, and in individual patients, only the same assay should be used. Problems may arise when different assays are used to manage therapies in the same patient.