Persistence and safety of anti-TNF biosimilars versus originators in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an observational study on the French National Health Data System.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules. METHODS: We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product. RESULTS: From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80-0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81-0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91-1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78-1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81-1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83-1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96-1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87-1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83-0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.

Comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis included in randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: While indirect comparison of infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in adults with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) shows that IFX has better effectiveness during induction, and comparable efficacy during maintenance treatment, comparative data specific to subcutaneous (SC) IFX (i.e., CT-P13 SC) versus VDZ are limited. AIM: Pooled analysis of randomised studies to compare efficacy and safety with IFX SC and VDZ in moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Parallel-group, randomised studies evaluating IFX SC and VDZ in patients with moderate-to-severe CD or UC were identified. Eligible studies reported ≥ 1 prespecified outcome of interest at Week 6 (reflecting treatment during the induction phase) and/or at 1 year (Weeks 50-54; reflecting treatment during the maintenance phase). Prespecified efficacy and safety outcomes considered in this pooled analysis included the proportions of patients achieving disease-specific clinical responses, clinical remission, or discontinuing due to lack of efficacy, and the proportions of patients experiencing adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, infections, serious infections, or discontinuing due to AEs. Data from multiple studies or study arms were extracted and pooled using a random-effect model; comparative analyses were performed separately for patients with CD and UC. RESULTS: We identified three eligible CD trials and four eligible UC trials that assigned over 1200 participants per disease cohort to either IFX SC or VDZ. In patients with CD, intravenous induction therapy with IFX demonstrated better efficacy (non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) compared with VDZ; during the maintenance phase, IFX SC showed numerically better efficacy (overlapping 95% CIs) than VDZ. A lower proportion of IFX SC-treated patients discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy over 1 year. In patients with UC, efficacy profiles were similar with IFX SC and VDZ during the induction and maintenance phases, and a lower proportion of IFX SC-treated patients discontinued therapy due to lack of efficacy over 1 year. In both cohorts, safety profiles for IFX SC and VDZ were generally comparable during 1 year. CONCLUSION: IFX SC demonstrated better efficacy than VDZ in patients with CD, and similar efficacy to VDZ in patients with UC; 1-year safety was comparable with IFX SC and VDZ.

Comparative maintenance performance of all biologic agents and small molecules in ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Βiologic agents and small molecules have expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, their comparative efficacy and safety performance as maintenance treatments have not been sufficiently explored. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NWM) to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved and emerging treatments for maintenance in moderate to severe UC. METHODS: We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant RCTs through April 2023. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at the end of the maintenance therapy. Data were analyzed by means of a Bayesian NWM. The ranking probability concerning efficacy and safety was evaluated by means of surfaces under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. RESULTS: There were 20 eligible RCTs with 7660 patients randomized to 20 treatments. RCTs were grouped into two study designs, that is, re-randomization of patients after an induction period and treat-through patients. Concerning efficacy, in re-randomized patients, upadacitinib 30 mg/day was ranked first (SUCRA 94.9%) whereas in treat-through patients etrasimod 2 mg/day was ranked first (SUCRA 91.1%). The integrated efficacy-safety hierarchical analysis, showed that tofacitinib 10 mg had the best efficacy-safety therapeutic profile in re-randomized patients, whereas in treat-through patients infliximab 3.5 mg/Kg Q8W showed the best efficacy-safety profile. CONCLUSION: For maintenance treatment, in moderate to severe UC, this NWM showed that upadacitinib 30 mg/day and etrasimod 2 mg/day were ranked best for efficacy in re-randomized and treat-through patients respectively. Tofacitinib 10 mg/day and infliximab 3.5 mg/Kg Q8W showed the best efficacy-safety therapeutic profile in re-randomized and treat-through patients respectively.

Efficacy and safety of Infliximab in systemic sarcoidosis according to GenPhenReSa organ-involvement phenotype: a retrospective study of 55 patients.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is currently recommended as a third-line treatment for refractory sarcoidosis. Data in function of clinical phenotype are currently lacking. We evaluated patients' characteristics and responses to infliximab according to their GenPhenReSa cluster. METHODS: We evaluated clinical and biological characteristics of patients diagnosed with sarcoidosis who received infliximab between September 2008 and April 2019 at our centre. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (median disease duration, 87 months) received infliximab: 48 (87%) as a second- or third-line treatment, and 7 (13%) as a first-line treatment. After a median duration of 12 months, 24 (45%) and 14 (25%) patients achieved complete and partial responses, respectively, together with a significant decrease in the number of affected organs and tapering of steroid doses. All patients with neurosarcoidosis (OR 17), 90% in group 2 (ocular-cardiac-cutaneous-CNS, OR 7.4), and approximately two-thirds of those in groups 1 (abdominal organs), 4 (pulmonary-lympho-nodal), and 5 (extrapulmonary), achieved a response, whereas patients in group 3 (musculoskeletal-cutaneous) had a treatment-failure OR of 9. Infliximab could be stopped after complete remission was achieved in 7 patients: 4 relapsed after a median of 6 months. Overall, 36% of patients experienced serious adverse events, mainly infections, which led to treatment cessation in 29% of patients and caused two deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Other than patients with musculoskeletal-cutaneous involvement (group 3), infliximab led to a good response for patients with CNS (group 2) and liver (group 1) organ-predominant sarcoidosis. However, it led to serious infections and merely suspended sarcoidosis, so further research on factors predictive of relapse is needed.

Effectiveness and safety of a third-line rescue treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis refractory to infliximab or ciclosporin (REASUC study).

BACKGROUND: The advent of new therapeutic agents and the improvement of supporting care might change the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) and avoid colectomy. AIMS: To evaluate the colectomy-free survival and safety of a third-line treatment in patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous steroids and who failed either infliximab or ciclosporin. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients with ASUC refractory to intravenous steroids who had failed infliximab or ciclosporin and received a third-line treatment during the same hospitalisation. Patients who stopped second-line treatment due to disease activity or adverse events (AEs) were eligible. We assessed short-term colectomy-free survival by logistic regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used for long-term assessment. RESULTS: Among 78 patients, 32 received infliximab and 46 ciclosporin as second-line rescue treatment. Third-line treatment was infliximab in 45 (58%), ciclosporin in 17 (22%), tofacitinib in 13 (17%) and ustekinumab in 3 (3.8%). Colectomy was performed in 29 patients (37%) during follow-up (median 21 weeks). Of the 78 patients, 32 and 18 were in clinical remission at, respectively, 12 and 52 weeks. At the last visit, 25 patients were still on third-line rescue treatment, while 12 had stopped it due to clinical remission. AEs were reported in 26 (33%) patients. Two patients died (2.6%), including one following colectomy. CONCLUSION: Third-line rescue treatment avoided colectomy in over half of the patients with ASUC and may be considered a therapeutic strategy.

New onset of uveitis during infliximab treatment: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF α) agents are an effective treatment for a variety of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. In ophthalmology anti-TNF α began to emerge as a possible therapy for non-infectious uveitis, paradoxically their administration may result in the onset or recurrence of inflammatory eye disease such as uveitis. We reported a case of new onset of bilateral anterior and intermediate uveitis in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) while being treated with infliximab and we performed a review of literature. OBSERVATION: A 25-year-old female with RA under infliximab, presented with bilateral blurred vision. Anterior segment examination demonstrated retrodescmetic fine precipates, 1+ cells in the anterior chamber on both eyes. The fundus examination was difficult because of the vitritis. Fluorescein angiography demonstrated mild optic disc edema, and bilateral diffuse peripheral fern leaf cappilaritis. Optical coherence tomography showed severe cystoid macular edema bilaterally. The diagnosis of bilateral anterior and intermediate uveitis caused by infliximab was retained after exclusion of infectious and autoimmune aetiologies. She was treated with corticosteroid with good visual outcome. CONCLUSION: In our case, new onset of uveitis may be considered as paradoxical effect of anti-TNF α therapy. Rheumatologists and ophthalmologists should be aware of this effect. Careful monitoring of patients under infliximab is necessary for appropriate diagnosis and early treatment.

Clinical use of biologics for Crohn's disease in adults: lessons learned from real-world studies.

INTRODUCTION: The therapeutic armamentarium for managing Crohn's disease (CD) has expanded significantly in recent decades. Several biologics with three different mechanisms of action [anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, anti-integrin α4ß7, and anti-IL 12/23] are currently available to manage CD. AREA COVERED: This narrative review aims to summarize the most significant efficacy and safety data on the use of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) for the treatment of CD obtained from studies conducted in the real world (RW), compared to the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). EXPERT OPINION: RW studies reported that biologic agents included in this analysis have higher remission rates and lower adverse event rates than findings from RCTs for treating patients with CD. All biological agents have proven effective and safe in RW studies, even when using biosimilars or switching to subcutaneous administration of the molecules for which they are available. Finally, anti-TNF-α agents, particularly IFX, have a higher rate of adverse events (AEs) than VDZ and UST. Therefore, patients at higher risk of AEs may benefit from other biologics than anti-TNF-α. However, further long-term RW studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods.

Selection strategy of second-line biologic therapies in adult patients with ulcerative colitis following prior biologic treatment failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing second-line biologic therapies for adult ulcerative colitis (UC) post first-line failure is essential. OBJECTIVE: Compare second-line biologic therapy efficacy in adult UC patients with prior treatment failure. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases up to May 2023 was conducted to assess second-line biologic therapy efficacy using a random effects model. Parameters analyzed included clinical remission rate, clinical response rate, mucosal healing rate, annual discontinuation rate, and colectomy rates. RESULTS: Forty-three research papers were analyzed. Clinical remission rates for second-line biologics were ranked at 6-14 weeks: Infliximab (30%) was followed by Vedolizumab (29%), Ustekinumab (27%), and Adalimumab (19%). At 52-54 weeks, the order shifted, with Vedolizumab (35%) followed by Infliximab (32%), Ustekinumab (31%), and Adalimumab (26%). The mucosal healing rate was 21%, ranked as: Infliximab (31%), Vedolizumab (21%), Adalimumab (21%), and Ustekinumab (14%). The annual discontinuation rate stood at 20%, with Adalimumab (25%), Vedolizumab (18%), Infliximab (17%), and Ustekinumab (16%). Discontinuation rates due to primary failure (PF), secondary failure (SF), and adverse events (AE) were 6%, 12%, and 3%, respectively. The annual colectomy rate was 9%, with Adalimumab (15%) followed by Vedolizumab (10%), Ustekinumab (9%), and Infliximab (5%), and colectomy rates of 10% due to PF, 12% due to SF, and 4% due to AE. CONCLUSION: For UC patients with first-line treatment failure, it is recommended to prioritize infliximab or vedolizumab as second-line biologic therapies, while avoiding adalimumab as the primary choice. Further clinical trials are necessary to assess ustekinumab efficacy accurately.

Infliximab desensitization in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a safe therapeutic alternative.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to the administration of infliximab (IFX) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) patients are not rare and usually lead to drug discontinuation. We report data on safety and effectiveness of desensitization to IFX in patients with previous HSR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study. Patients for whom a desensitization protocol to IFX was realized after a previous HSR were included. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and IFX trough levels at both inclusion and six months after desensitization were collected. Clinical outcomes, including recurrence of HSR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2020, 27 patients (Crohn's Disease: 26 (96%) were included). Desensitization after HSR was performed after a median time of 10.4 months (2.9-33.1). Nineteen (70%) patients received immunosuppressants at time of desensitization. Eight (30%) patients presented HSR at first (n = 2), second (n = 4) or third (n = 2) IFX perfusion after desensitization. None led to intensive care unit transfer or death. Thirteen (48%) had clinical response at 6 months and 8 (29%) were still under IFX treatment two years after desensitization. IFX trough levels and ADA were available for 14 patients at time of desensitization. Most patients (12 out of 14) had ADA at a high level. At 6 months, among the 7 patients with long term response to IFX, 4 presented a decrease of ADA titers and 2 had a significant trough level of IFX. CONCLUSION: IFX desensitization in patients with IBD is a safe therapeutic alternative and represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics.What is already known? Hypersensitivity reactions to the administration of infliximab is frequent. Occurrence of hypersensitivity reaction, either immediate or delayed, usually leads to permanent drug discontinuation.What is new here? Infliximab desensitization is well tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction recurrence in 70% of patients. Clinical success at 6 months was of 48% and around a third of patients remained under infliximab therapy two years after desensitization. Antidrug antibodies decreased and infliximab trough levels increased in these patients showing the impact of desensitization on immunogenicity.How can this study help patient care? Infliximab desensitization represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics who presented hypersensitivity reaction to the drug.

Efficacy and safety of infliximab in the treatment of Kawasaki disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody specifically binding tumor necrosis factor-alpha and has been approved for the treatment of several inflammatory disorders. However, the efficacy of infliximab in primary treatment of Kawasaki disease (KD) or retreatment of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG)-resistant KD in children is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of infliximab alone or in combination with IVIG to IVIG. Eligible randomized and non-randomized trials were retrieved by searching literature databases prior to May 31, 2023. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables, and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was estimated for continuous variables. A total of 14 eligible studies comprising 1257 participants were included. In refractory KD, infliximab alone was associated with a higher effectiveness rate (OR = 4.48, 95% CI 2.67-7.52) and defervescence rate (OR = 5.01, 95% CI 2.99-8.37) and resulted in a 1.08-day-shorter duration of fever (95% CI 0.61-1.55, P < 0.001) and 1.36-day-shorter length of hospital stay (95% CI 0.65-2.08) compared with IVIG. Incidences of coronary artery lesions (CALs), newly developing CALs, and CAL regression did not differ between both groups. For initial treatment of KD, infliximab in addition to IVIG led to a nominally significant higher effectiveness rate (OR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.02-5.01) and a larger reduction of right coronary artery Z score (MD = -0.24, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.21) but did not show additional efficacy in improving other outcomes. The safety profile was similar between both groups.   Conclusion: The meta-analysis demonstrates that infliximab alone is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for IVIG-resistant KD. The additional efficacy of infliximab to IVIG for initial treatment of KD is limited. More large and high-quality trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of infliximab, especially for intensification of primary treatment for KD. What is Known: • Infliximab is a novel monoclonal antibody specifically blocking tumor necrosis factor-alpha and is approved for treatment of several immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. • The efficacy of infliximab in treating children with Kawasaki disease is controversial. What is New: • Infliximab is an effective and safe treatment for children with refractory Kawasaki disease but adds limited efficacy to intravenous immunoglobulin for initial treatment of Kawasaki disease.

Identifying risk factors of anti-TNF induced skin lesions and other adverse events in paediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVES: While higher infliximab (IFX) trough concentrations (TCs) are associated with better outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), they could pose a risk for adverse events (AEs), including IFX-induced skin lesions. Therefore, we studied correlations between IFX TCs and occurrence of AEs in paediatric IBD patients. METHODS: In this single-centre study, all children with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving IFX maintenance therapy who underwent proactive drug monitoring between March 2015 and August 2022 were included. IFX doses/intervals/TCs and patient characteristics were systematically registered, as well as AEs and skin lesions appearance. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients (72 CD and 37 UC) contributed 2913 IFX TCs. During a median follow-up of 3.0 [1.5-4.5] years, we observed 684 AEs in 101 patients and 49 skin lesions in 35 patients. There was no significant difference (p = .467) in median TCs between patients with and without skin lesions. However, higher median IFX doses were associated with an increased hazard rate of skin lesions [HR 1.084 (1.024-1.148), p = .005], in addition to female sex [2.210 (1.187-5.310), p = .016] and diagnosis of CD [1.695 (1.241-1.877), p = .011]. Considering IFX therapeutic TC cut-offs of 5.0 and 9.0 µg/mL, there was no significant difference in AE rate (p = .749 and p = .833, respectively). Also, no significant association between IFX doses and AE rate (p = .159). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the IFX dose to achieve therapeutic TCs may not increase the overall risk of AEs in paediatric IBD patients. However, concerns arise regarding the risk of skin lesions, especially in female CD patients.

Subcutaneous infliximab CT-P13 without intravenous induction in psoriatic arthritis: A case report and pharmacokinetic considerations.

INTRODUCTION: The biosimilar CT-P13, the first and only subcutaneous (SC) infliximab formulation, is recommended for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and can be administered as a maintenance treatment, to be started 4 weeks after the induction treatment with 2 intravenous (IV) infliximab infusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment with SC infliximab without prior IV infusion induction to meet patient needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval by the ethics review board and based on the schedule approved for rheumatoid arthritis, SC induction was performed with infliximab CT-P13 120 mg weekly for 4 weeks, followed by an injection of 120 mg every 2 weeks. RESULTS: After 4 months of therapy, joint symptoms were resolved, inflammation parameters were normalized (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) reduced from 42 to 16 mm/h, and C-reactive protein from 1.74 to 0.43 mg/dL), and clinical assessment parameters were improved. After 9 months of therapy, the clinical data remained stable, with no adverse events or local side effects. CONCLUSION: SC infliximab was successfully used without previous IV infusion induction. Although, to date, the induction of PsA treatment via the SC route is not foreseen, the known pharmacokinetic properties and the outcome improvements observed in our patient show that subcutaneous treatment induction, as is already done in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is also possible.

Effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and infliximab in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease: results from the EVOLVE study.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the real-world effectiveness and safety of α 4 ß 7 -integrin inhibitor vedolizumab and anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) inhibitor infliximab in biologic-naive patients with Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: EVOLVE was a retrospective, multicenter, medical chart review of biologic-naive adults with inflammatory bowel disease receiving vedolizumab or anti-TNFα treatment as first-line biologics in Canada, Greece, and the USA. Twelve-month outcomes were analyzed in vedolizumab- or infliximab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe CD (and subgroups with complicated and noncomplicated CD) including cumulative rates of clinical response, clinical remission, and mucosal healing, and incidence rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to account for baseline differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 167 patients. In the IPW dataset (99 vedolizumab-treated and 63 infliximab-treated), adjusted 12-month clinical remission rates were 73.1% and 55.2%, respectively ( P  = 0.31). Overall, effectiveness rates were similar across treatment and complicated/noncomplicated disease subgroups. Adjusted 12-month incidence rates (first occurrence/1000 person-years) of SAEs for vedolizumab vs. infliximab: 43.6 vs. 200.9 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.36 (0.09-1.54)]; SIs: 10.8 vs. 96.0 [HR 0.08 (<0.01-2.64)]. AE incidence was significantly lower in vedolizumab- vs. infliximab-treated patients for complicated [131.6 vs. 732.2; HR 0.19 (0.05-0.65)] and noncomplicated [276.3 vs. 494.8; HR 0.59 (0.35-0.99)] disease subgroups. CONCLUSION: These real-world data on first-line biologics show no differences in 12-month effectiveness outcomes for vedolizumab- vs. infliximab-treated biologic-naive patients with CD. Vedolizumab may have a more favorable safety profile vs. infliximab in patients with complicated and noncomplicated disease.

Infections in inflammatory bowel disease patients on immunomodulator and biologic therapy are not associated with high serum drug levels.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies now utilise higher doses of immunomodulatory and biologic therapies, predisposing patients to an increased risk of infections. AIMS: We aimed to determine whether infections were associated with high anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drug levels in IBD and to quantify the risk and consequences of infections. METHODS: Two retrospective studies were performed, a descriptive cohort study and a matched case-control study. For the matched case-control study, cases of infection occurring on anti-TNF agents were matched in a 1:2 ratio to controls of anti-TNF treated patients without infections. RESULTS: In the descriptive study, 76 infections occurred in 60 patients, including 49 bacterial, 24 viral, four fungal and four parasitic. Of these, 61 (80.3%) were on biologics, 49 (64.5%) on immunomodulators and 11 (14.5%) on corticosteroids. Thirty-four (44.7%) were on combination therapy, 27 (35.5%) on biologic monotherapy and 15 (19.7%) on immunomodulator monotherapy. Median anti-TNF drug levels in infection cases were 3.9 µg/mL for infliximab and 6.0 µg/mL for adalimumab. In the case-control study, 32 cases of infection in 27 anti-TNF treated patients were matched with 64 anti-TNF treated controls without infections. Among infection cases, 59.5% were on combination therapy versus 40.6% on biologic monotherapy (P = 0.59). Median drug levels for cases and controls respectively were 3.9 µg/mL versus 5.5 µg/mL for infliximab (P = 0.72) and 6.0 µg/mL versus 9.9 µg/mL for adalimumab (P = 0.34). CONCLUSION: Infections in patients with IBD were common, and the risk was highest with combination therapy. Infections were not associated with high serum anti-TNF levels.

The Best Psoriasis Medications Emerge.

Clinical Question: What are the most effective systemic medications to treat plaque psoriasis? Bottom Line: The most effective drugs for psoriasis were infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab, and the clinical effectiveness was similar when these 4 drugs were compared against one another. No statistically significant differences in serious adverse events were identified in any of the drugs compared with placebo. The main limitations of this meta-analysis include the lack of assessment of clinical effectiveness beyond 52 weeks and the lack of safety assessments for nonserious adverse events.

Comparison between washed microbiota transplantation and infliximab: Medical cost during long-term management in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Both infliximab (IFX) and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have shown the efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there has no head-to-head study on the cost-value of the such treatments on IBD. This study aimed to compare the medical costs using IFX and the new method of FMT (washed microbiota transplantation [WMT]) in the long-term management for IBD under the current health economic condition in China. METHODS: Patients with IBD who underwent initial WMT via upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, mid-gut tube, or colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing at a university hospital between April 2013 and August 2021 and achieved the long-term sustainment with WMT or WMT combined with mesalazine until August 2022 were recruited in the real-world. The costs and hospitalizations were analyzed among two therapies mentioned above and IFX standard therapy. The charge of WMT was stable in the long term at our center, and the charge of IFX came from virtual statistics publicized by China Healthcare Security. RESULTS: Sixty eligible patients with IBD were included in the study. The long-term costs of patients using WMT monotherapy annually or per hospitalization were lower than those on WMT combined with mesalazine, respectively ( p < 0.001, respectively). The cumulative costs of IFX at the time of 0.52 and 0.85 years exceeded that of the above WMT, respectively ( p < 0.001, respectively). Besides, patients on WMT monotherapy paid 51.1 k CNY annually in the nonsustain phase but cut down the costs by 7.2 k CNY and duration of hospitalization by 5.1 days per hospitalization when reaching the goal of sustainment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that WMT could dramatically reduce the cost and duration of hospitalizations in the long-term sustainment in the current Chinese IBD cohort. Compared with IFX, WMT could be a good way for the patients with IBD achieving long-term sustainment and saving medical costs.

Long-term effectiveness and acceptability of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with intensified doses: The REMSWITCH-LT study.

BACKGROUND: The long-term risk of relapse after switching from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SC) infliximab remains unknown in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AIMS: To assess the long-term effectiveness and acceptability of switching from IV to SC infliximab in patients with IBD treated with or without an intensified IV regimen. METHODS: We extended the follow-up of the REMSWITCH study including patients with IBD in clinical remission who were switched from IV to SC infliximab (120 mg/2 weeks). Relapse was defined as clinical relapse or faecal calprotectin increase ≥150 µg/g compared to baseline. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 18 [15-20] months, among 128 patients, rates of relapse were 13.8% (8/58), 18.4% (7/38), 35.3% (6/17) and 86.7% (13/15) at last follow-up (p < 0.001), in those receiving 5 mg/kg/8 weeks, 10 mg/kg/8 weeks, 10 mg/kg/6 weeks and 10 mg/kg/4 weeks at baseline, respectively. Among relapsing patients, dose escalation led to clinical remission in 82.1% (23/28). In multivariable analyses, factors associated with higher risk of relapse were IV infliximab 10 mg/kg/4 weeks (OR = 61.0 [6.1-607.0], p < 0.001) or 10 mg/kg/6 weeks (OR = 4.7 [1.1-20.2], p = 0.017), and decreased (OR = 5.6 [1.5-20.3], p = 0.004) or stable (OR = 5.0 [1.6-15.0], p = 0.009) serum levels of infliximab between baseline and first post-switch visit. Acceptability was improved at 6 months and did not decrease over time (6.9 ± 1.6 before the switch vs. 8.8 ± 1.3 at 6 months and 8.8 ± 1.3 at last follow-up; p < 0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from IV to SC infliximab 120 mg every other week is safe and well accepted leading to low long-term risk of relapse. Tight monitoring and dose escalation should be recommended for patients receiving 10 mg/kg/6 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

[Translated article] Immune-Mediated Skin Reactions to Tumor Necrosis α Inhibitors: A Review of 30 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF) inhibitors are used to treat different inflammatory diseases. Although these biologics have an adequate safety profile, they have been associated with paradoxical reactions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients on TNF inhibitor therapy who developed a paradoxical skin reaction and were seen at the dermatology department of Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí in Sabadell, Spain. RESULTS: We collected data on 30 patients under treatment with a TNF inhibitor who developed an immune-mediated skin reaction in the form of psoriasis (90%), alopecia (6.7%), or neutrophilic dermatitis (3.3%). The most common drugs involved were adalimumab (56.7%) and infliximab (40%). Psoriasiform reactions mostly manifested as generalized plaques (62.9%) or palmoplantar pustulosis (37%). Thirteen patients (43.3%) continued on the same TNF inhibitor and 12 of them (92.3%) achieved partial or complete resolution of lesions. Five patients were switched to a different TNF inhibitor, but none of them achieved complete resolution. Eight patients were switched to a biologic with a different target, and 5 of them (62.5%) achieved partial or complete resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Paradoxical reactions during TNF inhibitor therapy do not always require a change of treatment. In our series, the addition of a topical and/or systemic treatment resolved the skin lesions in more than half of the patients, and switching to a drug with a different target was more effective. A change of strategy should be contemplated in more serious cases.

Tacrolimus After rATG and Infliximab Induction Immunosuppression-RIMINI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab selectively targets recently activated effector cells and, as an induction agent, might enable the safe elimination of mycophenolate from maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation. METHODS: This is a phase II international multicenter open-label single-arm confidence interval (CI)-based clinical trial of the BIO-DrIM EU consortium aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of rabbit antithymocyte globulin and infliximab induction in kidney transplantation. Sixty-seven primary kidney transplant recipients at low risk (panel-reactive antibodies <20%, no donor-specific antibodies [DSA]) received rabbit antithymocyte globulin (2 × 1.5 mg/kg, postoperative days 0 and 1) and infliximab (5 mg/kg, postoperative day 2), followed by mycophenolate-free tacrolimus-based immunosuppression for 12 mo. The primary endpoint was efficacy failure, defined as a composite of acute rejection, graft loss, or poor graft function (estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min) at 12 mo and was based on the endpoint of the comparator study. Additionally, a historical propensity-matched control cohort was established. RESULTS: Primary endpoint occurred in 22 of 67 patients (32.84%), with upper bound of an exact 1-sided 95% CI of 43.47%, which met the predefined criteria (efficacy failure of <40% and upper-bound 95% CI of <50%) and was similar in the historical matched cohort. By 12 mo, 79.1% of patients remained on the study protocol. Lower rates of BK replication (6% versus 22.4%; P = 0.013) but higher rates of de novo DSAs (11.9% versus 1.5%; P = 0.039) were observed in the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A similar efficacy of the study immunosuppression regimen to the comparator study and the historical matched cohort was found. However, a higher de novo DSA emergence points to an increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection (NCT04114188).