EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS: Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM.

Risk factors for anti-drug antibody formation to infliximab: Secondary analyses of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies (ADAb) frequently form early in the treatment course of infliximab and other tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, leading to treatment failure and adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for ADAb in the early phase of infliximab treatment. METHODS: Patients (n = 410) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who initiated infliximab treatment were included in the 38-week Norwegian Drug Monitoring Trial (NOR-DRUM) A and randomised 1:1 to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) or standard therapy. Serum levels of infliximab and ADAb were measured at each infusion. Possible risk factors for ADAb formation were assessed using logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: ADAb were detected in 78 (19%) patients. A diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (odds ratio [OR], 1.9 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-3.6]) and lifetime smoking (OR, 2.0 [CI 1.1-3.6]) were baseline risk factors, while baseline use of concomitant immunosuppressors (OR, 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.8]) and a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis (SpA) (OR, 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.8]) reduced the risk of ADAb. Higher disease activity during follow-up (OR, 1.1 [CI 1.0-1.1]) and "drug holidays" of more than 11 weeks (OR, 4.1 [CI 1.2-13.8]) increased the risk of ADAb, whereas higher infliximab doses (OR, 0.1 [CI 0.0-0.3) and higher serum infliximab concentrations (OR, 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.8]) reduced the risk of immunogenicity. CONCLUSION: Several risk factors for ADAb formation during early-phase infliximab treatment were identified. This knowledge provides a basis for treatment strategies to mitigate the formation of ADAb and identify patients in whom these measures are of particular importance.

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.

Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring vs Standard Therapy During Infliximab Induction on Disease Remission in Patients With Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), defined as individualized drug dosing based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an alternative to standard therapy to maximize efficacy and safety of infliximab and other biological drugs. However, whether proactive TDM improves clinical outcomes when implemented at the time of drug initiation, compared with standard therapy, remains unclear. Objective: To assess whether TDM during initiation of infliximab therapy improves treatment efficacy compared with standard infliximab therapy without TDM. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial of 411 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or psoriasis initiating infliximab therapy in 21 hospitals in Norway. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2017, to January 10, 2019. Final follow-up occurred on November 5, 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive proactive TDM with dose and interval adjustments based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies (TDM group; n = 207) or standard infliximab therapy without drug and antibody level monitoring (standard therapy group; n = 204). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical remission at week 30. Results: Among 411 randomized patients (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 14.9] years; 209 women [51%]), 398 (198 in the TDM group and 200 in the standard therapy group) received their randomized intervention and were included in the full analysis set. Clinical remission at week 30 was achieved in 100 (50.5%) of 198 and 106 (53.0%) of 200 patients in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 1.5%; 95% CI, -8.2% to 11.1%; P = .78). Adverse events were reported in 135 patients (68%) and 139 patients (70%) in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases initiating treatment with infliximab, proactive therapeutic drug monitoring, compared with standard therapy, did not significantly improve clinical remission rates over 30 weeks. These findings do not support routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring during infliximab induction for improving disease remission rates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074656.

Assessing Immunogenicity of Biologic Drugs in Inflammatory Joint Diseases: Progress Towards Personalized Medicine.

Biologic drugs have greatly improved treatment outcomes of inflammatory joint diseases, but a substantial proportion of patients either do not respond to treatment or lose response over time. Drug immunogenicity, manifested as the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), constitute a significant clinical problem. Anti-drug antibodies influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug, are associated with reduced clinical efficacy, and an increased risk of adverse events such as infusion reactions. The prevalence of ADAb differs among drugs and diseases, and the detection of ADAb also depends on the assay format. Most data exist for the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab, with a frequency of ADAb that ranges from 10 to 60% across studies. Measurement of ADAb and serum drug concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring, has been suggested as a strategy to optimize therapy with biologic drugs. Although the recent randomized clinical Norwegian Drug Monitoring (NOR-DRUM) trials show promise towards a personalized medicine prescribing approach by therapeutic drug monitoring, several challenges remain. A plethora of assay formats, with widely differing properties, is currently used for measuring ADAb. Comparing results between different assays and laboratories is difficult, which complicates the development of cut-offs necessary for guidelines and the implementation of ADAb measurements in clinical practice. With the possible exception of infliximab, limited data on clinical relevance and cost effectiveness exist to support therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine clinical strategy to monitor biologic drugs in inflammatory joint diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and prevalence of ADAb, predisposing factors to ADAb formation, commonly used assessment methods, clinical consequences of ADAb, and the potential implications of ADAb assessments for everyday treatment of inflammatory joint diseases.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider.

The objectives of this review were to collect and summarise evidence on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and to inform the EULAR Task Force for the formulation of evidence-based points to consider. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, covering technical aspects and (clinical) utility of TDM, to answer 13 research questions. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched until July 2020. American College of Rheumatology and EULAR abstracts were also considered for inclusion. Data were extracted in evidence tables and risk of bias assessment was performed. For the search on technical aspects, 678 records were identified, of which 22 papers were selected. For the clinical utility search, 3846 records were identified, of which 108 papers were included. Patient-related factors associated with biopharmaceutical blood concentrations included body weight, methotrexate comedication and disease activity. The identification of a target range was hampered by study variability, mainly disease activity measures and study type. Evidence was inconsistent for multiple clinical situations in which TDM is currently applied. However, for some particular scenarios, including prediction of future treatment response, non-response to treatment, tapering and hypersensitivity reactions, robust evidence was found. There is currently no evidence for routine use of proactive TDM, in part because published cost-effectiveness analyses do not incorporate the current landscape of biopharmaceutical costs and usage. This SLR yields evidence in favour of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in some clinical scenarios, but evidence is insufficient to support implementation of routine use of TDM.

Serum etanercept concentrations in relation to disease activity and treatment response assessed by ultrasound, biomarkers and clinical disease activity scores: results from a prospective observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the therapeutic range for etanercept and to assess the incidence of anti-etanercept antibody formation. METHODS: Associations between etanercept serum concentration and disease activity as well as treatment response were examined in a longitudinal observational study of rheumatoid arthritis patients starting etanercept. Disease activity was assessed by ultrasound (grey scale and power Doppler), 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index, plasma calprotectin and C reactive protein. Etanercept concentration and anti-etanercept antibodies were analysed using automated in-house fluorescence assays. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were included, whereof 66% were biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) naïve and 91% used concomitant synthetic DMARD. At 3 months, the median etanercept concentration was 1.8 (IQR 1.1-2.5) mg/L. Longitudinal associations were found between etanercept concentration and disease activity assessed by plasma calprotectin, C reactive protein and DAS28, but not between etanercept concentration and improvement in disease activity by any of the parameters at 3, 6 or 12 months of treatment. Etanercept concentrations were not significantly different among patients who achieved response or remission, compared with non-response or non-remission. Hence, no therapeutic range could be identified. None of the patients developed anti-etanercept antibodies. CONCLUSION: Despite the use of sensitive and objective markers of inflammation, a therapeutic range could not be identified for etanercept. Hence, this study suggests that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring is unlikely to benefit rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with etanercept, but a potential benefit in certain clinical situations cannot be excluded.

Associations between certolizumab pegol serum levels, anti-drug antibodies and treatment response in patients with inflammatory joint diseases: data from the NOR-DMARD study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify a therapeutic target interval for certolizumab pegol drug levels and examine the influence of anti-drug antibodies in patients with inflammatory joint diseases. METHODS: Certolizumab pegol and anti-drug antibody levels were measured in serum samples collected after 3 months of certolizumab pegol treatment in 268 patients with inflammatory joint diseases (116 axial spondyloarthritis, 91 rheumatoid arthritis and 61 psoriatic arthritis) in the NOR-DMARD study. Treatment response was defined by Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score Clinically important improvement in axial spondyloarthritis, European League Against Rheumatism good/moderate response in rheumatoid arthritis, and improvement in 28-joint Disease Activity Score of ≥ 0.6 in PsA. Serum drug levels and anti-drug antibodies were analysed using automated in-house assays. RESULTS: Certolizumab pegol serum levels varied considerably between individuals (median (IQR) 32.9 (17.3-43.9) mg/L). Certolizumab pegol level ≥ 20 mg/L was associated with treatment response for the total inflammatory joint disease population, with odds ratio (OR) 2.3 (95% CI 1.2-4.5, P = 0.01) and OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.0-3.5, P = 0.05) after 3 and 6 months of treatment, respectively. For individual diagnoses, this association was most consistent for axial spondyloarthritis, with OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.0-11.1, P < 0.05) and OR 3.3 (95% CI 1.0-10.8, P < 0.05), respectively. Certolizumab pegol level > 40 mg/L was not associated with any additional benefit for any of the diagnoses. Anti-drug antibodies were detected in 6.1% (19/310) of samples and were associated with low certolizumab pegol levels (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Serum certolizumab pegol levels 20-40 mg/L were associated with treatment response in inflammatory joint diseases. Our study is the first to show this association in axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis patients. The results suggest a possible benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory joint disease on certolizumab pegol treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01581294, April 2012.