Inflammatory Bowel Disease [IBD] and Physical Activity: A Study on the Impact of Diagnosis on the Level of Exercise Amongst Patients With IBD.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] can impair patients' functional capacity with significant negative effects on their quality of life. Our aim was to determine the impact of IBD diagnosis on fitness levels and to assess the levels of engagement in physical activity and fatigue in IBD patient before and after diagnosis. METHODS: A prospective multi-centre cross-sectional study was performed. Patients diagnosed with IBD in the previous 18 months were recruited. Inclusion criteria included clinical remission and/or no treatment changes within the previous 6 months. Physical exercise levels were assessed by the Godin score and fatigue levels was assessed by the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy [FACIT] score. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients (100 Crohn's disease [CD]) were recruited. Mean age was 35.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI] ± 2.0). Gender distribution was approximately equal [51.3% male]. The Mean Harvey Bradshaw and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity indices were 2.25 [95% CI ± 0.40] and 1.64 [95% CI ± 0.49], respectively. The mean Godin score difference before and after IBD diagnosis was 6.94 [p = 0.002]. Patients with ulcerative colitis [UC] [41.8%] were more likely than patients with CD [23.0%] to reduce their exercise levels [p = 0.04]. FACIT scores were lower in patients who had experienced relapses [p = 0.012] and had severe disease [p = 0.011]. Approximately one-third of patients reduced their activity level following IBD diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were significantly less physically active after a diagnosis of IBD and this was more apparent in UC. Identification of the risk factors associated with loss of fitness levels would help to address the reduced patient quality of life.

Antigenic response to CT-P13 and infliximab originator in inflammatory bowel disease patients shows similar epitope recognition.

AIM: To test the cross-immunogenicity of anti-CT-P13 IBD patients' sera to CT-P13/infliximab originator and the comparative antigenicity evoked by CT-P13/infliximab originator sera. METHODS: Sera of patients with IBD with measurable anti-CT-P13 antibodies were tested for their cross-reactivity to 5 batches of infliximab originator and CT-P13. Anti-drug antibody positive sera from treated patients were used to compare antigenic epitopes. RESULTS: All 42 anti-CT-P13 and 37 anti-infliximab originator IBD sera were cross-reactive with infliximab originator and CT-P13 respectively. Concentration of anti-drug antibodies against infliximab originator or CT-P13 were strongly correlated both for IgG1 and IgG4 (P < 0.001). Anti-CT-P13 sera of patients with IBD (n = 32) exerted similar functional inhibition on CT-P13 or infliximab originator TNF binding capacity and showed reduced binding to CT-P13 in the presence of five different batches of CT-P13 and infliximab originator. Anti-CT-P13 and anti-infliximab originator IBD sera selectively enriched phage-peptides from the VH (CDR1 and CDR3) and VL domains (CDR2 and CDR3) of infliximab. Sera reactivity detected major infliximab epitopes in these regions of infliximab in 60%-79% of patients, and no significant differences were identified between CT-P13 and infliximab originator immunogenic sera. Minor epitopes were localised in framework regions of infliximab with reduced antibody reactivity shown, in 30%-50% of patients. Monoclonal antibodies derived from naïve individuals and ADA-positive IBD patients treated with CT-P13 provided comparable epitope specificity to five different batches of CT-P13 and infliximab originator. CONCLUSIONS: These results strongly support a similar antigenic profile for infliximab originator and CT-P13, and point toward a safe switching between the two drugs in anti-drug antibody negative patients.

Safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of vedolizumab in patients with simultaneous exposure to an anti-tumour necrosis factor.

BACKGROUND: Data on combination-biologic treatment in (IBD) are still scant. AIM: To explore outcomes of patients co-exposed to anti-TNF and vedolizumab. METHODS: Patients starting vedolizumab having measurable anti-TNF levels after recently stopping adalimumab/infliximab ('VDZ-aTNF' group), were compared with control vedolizumab patients in a retrospective 1:2 matched case-control study. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included (25 VDZ-aTNF, 50 VDZ). Adverse events were experienced by 9/25 VDZ-aTNF compared to 13/50 VDZ patients (P = 0.4, follow-up 14 weeks in all). Week 14 clinical remission was attained in 10/25 (40%) of VDZ-aTNF patients versus 23/50 (46%) of VDZ patients (OR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.3-2.1, P = 0.6) and clinical response in 19/25 (76%) versus 39/50 (78%) respectively (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.3-2.7, P = 0.8). Corticosteroid-free remission and corticosteroid-free response were experienced by 30% and 54%, respectively, of the entire cohort, and were similar between the two groups. Vedolizumab drug concentrations at week 2, 6 and 14 were similar among VDZ-aTNF and VDZ patients (P > 0.5). Multi-variable analysis showed independent association of some vedolizumab drug-levels time-points with baseline albumin and weight, but not with anti-TNF co-exposure. In a prospective study of a separate cohort of patients starting infliximab (n = 12), the percentage of α4ß7+ memory T cells, slightly but nonsignificantly increased throughout weeks 0, 2 to 14 (26 ± 2.3%, 27.8 ± 2.9%, 29.5 ± 2.6% respectively, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab/anti-TNF co-exposure did not generate new safety signals during 14-weeks induction, nor did it reduce efficacy or alter vedolizumab pharmacokinetics. These observations may aid the design of future co-biologics trials and also suggest that a deliberate waiting-interval between anti-TNF cessation and subsequent vedolizumab initiation may not be warranted.

Early drug and anti-infliximab antibody levels for prediction of primary nonresponse to infliximab therapy.

BACKGROUND: Primary nonresponse, defined as lack of clinical benefit during the induction phase, occurs in up to 30% of IBD patients treated with infliximab. The mechanisms underlying primary nonresponse have not yet been clearly defined. AIM: To evaluate the association of early (week 2 and week 6) induction infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody levels with primary nonresponse. METHODS: A retrospective observational case-control study of inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with infliximab and followed at Sheba Medical Center between 2009 and 2016 was performed. Pre-infusion infliximab and antibodies to infliximab (ATI) levels were measured by our previously described drug-tolerant ELISA assay. RESULTS: Thirty-five primary nonresponders have been identified and matched with 105 primary responders (1:3 ratios). Both week 2 and week 6 infliximab levels were significantly lower among primary nonresponders compared to responders (week 2, 6: median level 7.2, 2.2 µg/mL vs 13.5, 9.5 µg/mL, P = .0019, P < .0001 respectively). Antibodies to infliximab appeared more frequently (either week 2 or 6, 68% vs 28% prevalence, P = .0004) and at higher levels in nonresponders compared to responders (week 2, 6: median ATI 7.3, 10.8 µg/mL-eq vs 3.8, 4.4 µg/mL-eq, P = .005, P = .008 respectively). Moreover, week 2 infliximab levels <6.8 µg/mL (AUC = 0.68, P = .002, sensitivity 50%, specificity 86%) and antibodies to infliximab levels >4.3 µg/mL-eq (AUC = 0.78, P = .0004, sensitivity 77%, specificity 71%) were predictive of primary nonresponse. Among the other clinical and demographic variables, higher baseline ulcerative colitis clinical score, infliximab monotherapy, prior adalimumab therapy and previous Crohn's disease-related surgeries were also associated with an increased risk of primary nonresponse. CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab levels below 6.8 µg/mL and antibodies to infliximab levels above 4.3 µg/mL-eq before the second infusion are associated with primary nonresponse, especially among Crohn's disease patients.

Re-phrasing the question: A simple tool for evaluation of adherence to therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to medication in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a challenging problem which is often overlooked or under-estimated by the physician or denied by the patient. We aimed to examine if re-phrasing the wording of the question used by the physician could help in revealing more patients who are non-adherent, and for whom appropriate counseling may be instituted. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of IBD patients treated in a tertiary center was conducted. Patients received a questionnaire detailing their treatments and disease course, as well as their perceptions about disease. Two forms of questions about adherence were deliberately placed in two separate parts of the questionnaire: One was 'are you taking your medications regularly as prescribed?' (Standard question), and the second, more emphatic question, was 'how often does it happen that you miss a drug dosing?' (Re-phrased question). The rate of non-adherence disclosed by each of these questions was compared. Sensitivity, specificity and predicative values were computed for each question against the conventional definition of non-adherence as taking of less than 80% of prescribed medication doses disclosed by any of the methods. Predictors of non-compliance and of denying non-compliance were also explored. RESULTS: Overall, 165 patients were included (49% female, mean age 33.7 ± 12.7 SD, median age 30 years, 29.6% with ulcerative colitis, 62.4% with Crohn's disease). Upon questioning, 50 (30.3%) of the patients admitted to non-adherence in the last month when asked by the emphatic re-phrased question format, compared with only 10 patients (6%) reporting non-adherence when asked directly by the standard question (OR 7.4, 95%CI 3.6-15.2, p < 0.001). Thus, a 'Do you take your medicine regularly' question format disclosed only 20% of genuinely non-compliant patients and had 16% sensitivity and 98.2% specificity for revealing non-adherence (PPV 80%, NPV 72.9%) compared with the reference re-phrased question. The leading cause for non-adherence was skepticism about drug efficacy or safety (20.5%), followed by vacation or weekend (15%), problems with prescription or pharmacy (13.5%) and forgetfulness (10%). No single demographic or clinical factor correlated with non-adherence. The only factor which correlated with higher probability for non-adherence was biological and combination treatment. CONCLUSION: Non-compliance with treatment is much more common than patients admit. Asking patients how often does it happen that they miss a drug dosing is a simple, practical tool which performs significantly better in disclosing non-adherence compared with asking patients if they take their medication as they should.

Diffusion-weighted imaging in quiescent Crohn's disease: correlation with inflammatory biomarkers and video capsule endoscopy.

AIM: To investigate the role of restricted diffusion in quiescent Crohn's disease (CD) patients and its association with inflammatory biomarkers and endoscopic disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-two quiescent CD patients prospectively underwent magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and were tested for the inflammatory biomarkers, faecal calprotectin (FCP) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Restricted diffusion in the distal ileum was qualitatively (absence/presence) and quantitatively (apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC]) assessed by two readers. The VCE-based Lewis score was calculated for the distal ileum. Restricted diffusion sensitivity and specificity for VCE ulcerations were assessed for patients with elevated (>100 µg/g) or normal (<100 µg/g) FCP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the ability of ADC to identify patients with concurrent VCE ulceration and elevated FCP. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of restricted diffusion for patients with VCE ulceration were higher in patients with elevated FCP (reader 1: 71.4%, 80%, reader 2: 76.2%, 100%, respectively) compared to patients with normal FCP (reader 1: 46.2%, 61.5%; reader 2: 15.4%, 76.9%, respectively). The ADC had a high diagnostic accuracy for identifying patients that had concurrent VCE ulceration and elevated FCP (reader 1: AUC=0.819, reader 2: AUC=0.832). CONCLUSION: In quiescent CD patients, the presence of restricted diffusion is suggestive of an active inflammation, associated with elevated FCP. Thus, DWI may serve as a clinical tool in the follow-up of these patients, implying subclinical inflammatory flares.

Addition of an immunomodulator can reverse antibody formation and loss of response in patients treated with adalimumab.

BACKGROUND: Anti-adalimumab antibodies (AAA) are associated with loss of clinical response (LOR). Addition of an immunomodulator has been shown to reverse immunogenicity and regain response with infliximab monotherapy. Similar data on adalimumab are lacking. AIM: To study the impact of immunomodulator addition on the emergence of AAA and LOR among adalimumab therapy patients. METHODS: The databases of three tertiary medical centres were reviewed to identify patients who developed AAA during adalimumab monotherapy with resultant LOR, and received an immunomodulator as a salvage combination therapy. All sera were prospectively analysed using previously described ELISA assays. Clinical response was determined using appropriate clinical scores. Elimination of AAA, designated as 'sero-reversal', elevation of drug levels and regained clinical response were the sought outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (21 Crohn's disease, and 2 ulcerative colitis) developed AAA with subsequent LOR and were thereafter prescribed an immunomodulator as salvage therapy (thiopurine n = 14, methotrexate n = 9). Eleven patients (48%) underwent sero-reversal with gradual elimination of AAA, increase in drug trough levels and restoration of clinical response (median time to sero-reversal 5 months). In 12 patients (52%), immunogenicity and loss of response could not be reversed. There was no difference between responders and nonresponders in the type of immunomodulators used or baseline clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In almost half of inflammatory bowel disease patients developing anti-adalimumab antibodies and loss of response, established immunogenicity of adalimumab can be gradually reversed by the addition of immunomodulator therapy with restoration of a clinico-biological response. However, these observations need to be confirmed with larger studies.

Soluble Syndecan-1: A Novel Biomarker of Small Bowel Mucosal Damage in Children with Celiac Disease.

BACKGROUND: Syndecan-1 (SDC1) is essential for maintaining normal epithelial barrier. Shedding of SDC1 ectodomain, reflected by serum soluble syndecan-1 (SSDC1) levels, is regulated by inflammation. Increased intestinal permeability plays a central role in celiac disease (CD). The association between SSDC1 levels and mucosal damage in CD has not been evaluated. AIMS: To evaluate serum SSDC1 levels in children with CD and to determine its relationship with histological grading classified by modified Marsh criteria. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, pilot study, in which serum SSDC1 was analyzed by ELISA in a cohort of 49 untreated children with CD and 15 children with nonspecific abdominal pain (AP). CD was diagnosed based on positive celiac serology and small intestinal biopsy. SSDC1 levels at the time of biopsy were correlated with Marsh grading. Controls were defined by AP, negative celiac serology, normal upper endoscopy, and small intestinal biopsies. RESULTS: SSDC1 levels were significantly higher in CD patients compared to AP controls (116.2 ± 161 vs. 41.3 ± 17.5 ng/ml, respectively, p < 0.01). SSDC1 levels were significantly higher in patients with Marsh 3c lesion compared to AP controls (170.6 ± 201 vs. 41.3 ± 17.5 ng/ml, respectively, p < 0.05). SSDC1 concentrations displayed a significant correlation with mucosal damage defined by Marsh (r = 0.39, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This is the first study demonstrating elevated levels of serum SSDC1 in children with CD. Our results suggest that SSDC1 is a potentially novel marker of intestinal mucosal damage in patients with CD. Its applicability as a surrogate biomarker in CD remains to be determined.

Induction infliximab levels among patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis compared with patients with moderately severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is effective as salvage therapy for patients with steroid refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Although current data suggest that the pharmacokinetics of infliximab are influenced by inflammatory burden in patients with acute severe UC, data comparing infliximab trough levels in patients with acute severe UC vs. moderately severe UC are scarce. AIM: To compare infliximab trough and anti-infliximab antibody levels at a standard fixed time-point during induction between patients with acute severe and moderately severe UC. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study comparing infliximab drug and antibody levels 14 days after the first infusion in hospitalised acute severe UC versus out-patients with moderately severe UC was performed. RESULTS: Sixteen acute severe UC patients, hospitalised between 2010-2015 and refractory to intravenous corticosteroids, were treated with infliximab 5 mg/kg salvage therapy. They were compared to 16 moderately severe UC out-patient controls. Mean infliximab trough levels at day 14 were significantly lower in patients with acute severe UC compared to moderately severe UC (7.15 ± 5.3 vs. 14.4 ± 11.2 µg/mL, P = 0.007). Seven patients (three acute severe and four moderate severe UC) were primary nonresponders to infliximab induction therapy. Infliximab level at day 14 did not differ between responders and nonresponders (9.8 ± 9 vs. 12.1 ± 10.6 µg/mL, respectively, P = N.S.). However, week 2 median antibody-to-infliximab levels were numerically higher among primary nonresponders (3.4 ± 5.7 vs. 1.2 ± 4 µg/mL-eq, respectively, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab trough levels at day 14 were lower in patients with acute severe UC compared to moderately severe UC, possibly due to a higher inflammatory burden and/or increased drug clearance. However, drug levels at day 14 were not lower among nonresponders compared with responders. Controlled trials are warranted to examine whether an a-priori-intensified infliximab induction protocol will lead to an improved outcome in acute severe UC.

Undetectable anti-TNF drug levels in patients with long-term remission predict successful drug withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Low drug levels are associated with emerging loss of response to anti-TNF. However, this may not be the case in patients with long-term remission. AIM: To investigate the outcome of anti-TNF discontinuation in patients with long-term remission and incidental undetectable drug levels. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study examining the duration of relapse-free survival in IBD patients in remission who discontinued infliximab or adalimumab having undetectable drug levels. RESULTS: Forty eight patients who discontinued anti-TNF while in remission and had available drug levels were identified in two centres in France and Israel (infliximab-treated 35, adalimumab-13, Crohn's disease 30, ulcerative colitis 18, mean treatment duration of 22.7 ± 12.4 months). Endoscopy/MRE before stopping showed absence of active inflammation in 40/42 (95%) of evaluated patients, while inflammatory biomarkers (CRP and/or Calprotectin) were completely normal in only 31/48 (65%) of patients. During 12 months median follow-up, relapse occurred in 16/20 (80%) of patients who stopped anti-TNF while having measurable drug levels compared with 9/28 (32%) of patients who had undetectable drug levels (OR: 8.4, 95% CI: 2.2-32, P = 0.002). Relapse-free survival after anti-TNF cessation was significantly longer in patients with absent drug compared to those with detectable drug (P < 0.001, log rank test). On multivariate analysis, a patient's decision to stop therapy was weakly associated and abnormal inflammatory biomarkers and detectable drug levels were both strongly and independently associated with a higher risk of relapse after drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Incidental finding of undetectable anti-TNF drug levels in patients with stable long-term deep remission may identify a subset of patients whose clinical remission is no longer dependent on anti-TNF treatment.

Adalimumab drug and antibody levels as predictors of clinical and laboratory response in patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is an effective treatment for Crohn's disease (CD). Anti-adalimumab antibodies (AAA) and low trough serum drug concentrations have been implicated as pre-disposing factors for treatment failure. AIMS: To assess adalimumab and AAA serum levels, and to examine their association and discriminatory ability with clinical response and serum C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using trough sera from adalimumab-treated CD patients. Demographical data, Montreal classification, treatment regimen and clinical status were recorded. Serum adalimumab, AAA and CRP were measured. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and a multivariate regression model were performed to find drug and antibody thresholds for predicting disease activity at time of serum sampling. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen trough serum samples were included from 71 patients. High adalimumab trough serum concentration was associated with disease remission (Area Under Curve 0.748, P < 0.001). A cut-off drug level of 5.85 µg/mL yielded optimal sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio for remission prediction (68%, 70.6% and 2.3, respectively). AAA were inversely related with adalimumab drug levels (Spearman's r = -0.411, P < 0.001) and when subdivided into categorical values, positively related with disease activity (P < 0.001). High drug levels and stricturing vs. penetrating or inflammatory phenotype, but not AAA levels, independently predicted disease remission in a multivariate logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab drug levels were inversely related to disease activity. High levels of anti-adalimumab antibodies were positively associated with disease activity, but this association was mediated mostly by adalimumab drug levels.

The impact of pseudomembrane formation on the outcome of Clostridium difficile-associated disease.

PURPOSE: Although pseudomembranes are the hallmark manifestation of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), there are scant data specifically addressing their impact on the clinical outcome. We investigated whether the formation of pseudomembranes predicts a worse CDAD outcome. METHODS: CDAD patients hospitalized during 2010 underwent sigmoidoscopy and were followed prospectively. In addition, all hospitalized CDAD patients in the period 01/2000-12/2009 who underwent lower endoscopy were retrospectively identified and their charts reviewed. Patients with detectable pseudomembranes on endoscopy were compared to those in whom pseudomembranes were absent. Thirty-day mortality and a composite outcome comprised of mortality within 30 days of diagnosis, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), colectomy, peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, or respiratory insufficiency were addressed. Additional clinical outcomes used for comparison between the two groups were 60-day mortality, duration of hospitalization, and the failure of metronidazole and vancomycin. RESULTS: A total of 117 CDAD patients (mean age 62.9 ± 19 years) who underwent lower endoscopy were included; 46 with pseudomembranes and 71 without. Seven out of the 46 patients with pseudomembranes died within 30 days compared to 9/71 in the non-pseudomembrane group [odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-3.6, P = 0.8]. Similarly, there was no correlation between the occurrence of pseudomembranes and the rate of the composite adverse outcome (P = 0.6). In contrast, acute renal insufficiency (OR 15, 95% CI 3.2-72, P < 0.001) and hypoalbuminemia (OR 5.7, 95% CI 1.8-18, P = 0.002) were both independently predictive of a severe clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the presence of pseudomembranes is not associated with an adverse outcome in CDAD patients.

Prior varicella zoster virus exposure in IBD patients treated by anti-TNFs and other immunomodulators: implications for serological testing and vaccination guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is a severe and preventable infection in immunosuppressed IBD patients. ECCO guidelines recommend VZV immunisation in patients with negative VZV exposure history. The value of patient-reported VZV exposure history for prediction of seropositivity in IBD patients remains unknown. Moreover, data on VZV immunity in adult IBD patients or accuracy of VZV serological testing under immunomodulator treatment is sparse. AIMS: The primary aim was to determine the prevalence of seropositivity for VZV-IgG in immunomodulator-treated IBD patients. A secondary aim was to establish the value of patient-reported history of past VZV infection for prediction of immunity, to validate the current vaccination strategy. METHODS: History of VZV-related illness was accessed by epidemiological questionnaire, and serological testing for VZV-IgG was performed. Serum anti-TNF medications levels were measured when applicable. RESULTS: One hundred twenty one IBD (86% Crohn's disease, mean age 37 ± 12.8) patients were included in the study. Immunomodulator therapy was received by 87% (anti-TNFs- 71%) of the patients. Previous exposure to VZV was reported by 104 patients, and 97/104 (93%) were VZV-IgG seropositive. Seventeen patients, all seropositive, reported negative exposure history. The calculated positive and negative predictive values for the reported history of VZV exposure were 93% and 0% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Negative history of VZV exposure is a poor predictor of seronegativity. History-positive patients may still be seronegative and exposed to VZV infection. We suggest serological testing of all IBD patients with subsequent immunisation of the seronegative patients before initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

The decline of anti-drug antibody titres after discontinuation of anti-TNFs: implications for predicting re-induction outcome in IBD.

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies can be elicited by infliximab and adalimumab, but the rate of their decay after therapy is stopped is unknown. AIM: To investigate the decline of anti-drug antibody titre after anti-TNF cessation, and to evaluate the clinical utility of anti-drug antibody measurement before anti-TNF re-induction. METHODS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who stopped anti-TNF therapy and had measurable anti-drug antibodies were prospectively followed up by serial blood measurements of antibodies levels. The clinical outcome of a second cohort of patients who received re-induction by infliximab or adalimumab after a drug holiday >4 months was determined vis-à-vis their anti-drug antibodies status before re-induction. RESULTS: The first cohort included 22 patients with anti-drug antibodies who were prospectively followed up after cessation of anti-TNF. Sixteen had antibodies-to-infliximab (ATI) and six had antibodies-to-adalimumab (ATA). ATI titres declined within 12 months to below detection levels in 13/16 infliximab-treated patients, whereas ATA titres became undetectable in only 2/6 adalimumab-treated patients (P = 0.04). The second cohort comprised 27 patients who resumed anti-TNFs (24 infliximab, 3 adalimumab). Of these, 3/5 patients with measurable anti-drug antibodies before re-induction experienced severe hypersensitivity reaction and/or nonresponse mandating drug-discontinuation, compared to 11/22 patients who were re-induced without measurable anti-drug antibodies (OR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.2-11, P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Antibodies to infliximab titres decline to undetectable levels within one year of cessation of infliximab in the majority of patients, whereas antibodies to adalimumab seem to persist longer after adalimumab discontinuation. Measuring antibodies to infliximab prior to infliximab re-induction is probably of little clinical utility, especially if more than a 12-month drug-holiday has elapsed.

Review article: loss of response to anti-TNF treatments in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Loss of response to anti-TNF agents in Crohn's disease is an emerging clinical problem. AIM: To review the causes, incidence and management approach of loss of response. METHODS: A search of medical database (PubMed) and of meetings' proceedings for definitions, causes and incidence of loss of response was carried out. Personal correspondence with principal investigators was conducted to retrieve missing data. RESULTS: Various definitions of loss of response abound, hampering the ability to assess accurately the magnitude and management of this clinical problem. We propose to distinguish between a clinical worsening on anti-TNF treatment and a true loss of response to anti-TNFs. Accordingly, loss of response to anti-TNFs at 12 months of therapy occurs in 23-46% of patients when judged by dose intensification, or 5-13% when gauged by drug discontinuation rates. The management of loss of response should allow for a period of watchful waiting as quite often the patients' symptoms may resolve without alteration of therapy. If they do not, then identifying the correct mechanism responsible for clinical deterioration is prudent. Once symptoms are ascertained to arise from inflammatory IBD activity, drug level and antidrug antibody measurement can then help distinguish between non-adherence to therapy, immunogenicity and non-immune clearance of anti-TNF, or an un-chequered inflammation despite adequate anti-TNF levels. The latter finding may be best addressed by a switch to another class of immunomodulators, whereas a low drug level should probably be managed by dose intensification or a switch to another anti-TNF. CONCLUSION: Studies defining how best to translate drug-level monitoring and other mechanistic considerations into clinical decisions are urgently needed.

The efficacy of shortening the dosing interval to once every six weeks in Crohn's patients losing response to maintenance dose of infliximab.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with infliximab for Crohn's disease (CD) frequently require intensified dosage due to loss of response. There are scant data regarding the efficacy of shortening the dosing interval to 6 weeks. AIM: We sought to investigate the efficacy of a once every 6 weeks' strategy compared with dose-doubling. METHODS: This work was a multicentre retrospective study of infliximab-treated CD patients who required dose escalation. The clinical outcome of patients treated by intensification to 5 mg/kg/6 weeks (6-week group) was compared with the outcome of patients whose infliximab was double-dosed (10 mg/kg/8 weeks or 5 mg/kg/4 weeks). RESULTS: Ninety-four patients (mean age: 29.8 years) were included in the study, 55 (59%) in the 6-week group and 39 (41%) in the double-dose group. Demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the two groups, although patients with re-emerging symptoms 5-7 weeks postinfusion were more likely to receive 5 mg/kg/6 weeks dosing (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 1.4-8.8, P < 0.01). Early response to dose-intensification occurred in 69% of patients in the 6-week group and 67% in the double-dose group (P = N.S.). Regained response was maintained for 12 months in 40% compared with 29% of the patients respectively (P = N.S.). CONCLUSION: In CD patients who lost response to standard infliximab dose, especially when symptoms re-emerge 5-7 weeks postinfusion, shortening the dosing interval to 6 weeks appears to be at least as effective as doubling the dose to 10 mg/kg or halving the infusion intervals to once in 4 weeks.