Background and aims Infliximab attenuates serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whether this is a class effect, or if anti-TNF level influences serological responses, remains unknown. Methods Seroprevalence and the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody responses were measured in surplus serum from 11422 (53.3% (6084) male; median age 36.8 years) patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, stored at six therapeutic drug monitoring laboratories between 29 th January and 30 th September 2020. Data were linked to nationally-held SARS-CoV-2 PCR results to 4 th May 2021. Results Rates of PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar across treatment groups. Seroprevalence rates were lower in infliximab- and adalimumab- than vedolizumab-treated patients (infliximab: 3.0% (178/5893), adalimumab: 3.0% (152/5074), vedolizumab: 6.7% (25/375), p = 0.003). The magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was similar in infliximab- vs adalimumab-treated patients (median 4.30 cut-off index (COI) (1.94 – 9.96) vs 5.02 (2.18 – 18.70), p = 0.164), but higher in vedolizumab-treated patients (median 21.60 COI (4.39 - 68.10, p< 0.004). Compared to patients with detectable infliximab and adalimumab drug levels, patients with undetectable drug levels (<0.8 mg/L) were more likely to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. One-third of patients who had PCR testing prior to antibody testing failed to seroconvert, all were anti-TNF treated. Subsequent positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was seen in 7.9% (12/152) patients after a median time of 183.5 days (129.8 – 235.3), without differences between drugs. Conclusion Anti-TNF treatment is associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid seroprevalence and antibody reactivity when compared to vedolizumab-treated patients. Higher seropositivity rates in patients with undetectable anti-TNF levels supports a causal relationship, although confounding factors, such as combination therapy with immunomodulator, may have influenced the results.
COVID-19 has dominated life in 2020 with, at the time of writing, over 4.9M global cases and >320 000 deaths. The impact has been most intensely felt in acute and critical care environments. However, with most UK elective work postponed, laboratory testing of faecal calprotectin halted due to potential risk of viral transmission and non-emergency endoscopies and surgeries cancelled, the secondary impact on chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is becoming apparent. Data from the Scottish Biologic Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) service shows a dramatic drop in TDM testing since the pandemic onset. April 2020 saw a 75.6% reduction in adalimumab testing and a 36.2% reduction in infliximab testing when compared with February 2020 data, a reduction coinciding with the widespread cancellation of outpatient and elective activity. It is feared that disruption to normal patterns of care and disease monitoring of biologic patients could increase the risk of disease flare and adverse clinical outcomes. Urgent changes in clinical practice have been instigated to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on routine clinical care. Further transformations are needed to maintain safe, effective, patient-centred IBD care in the future.
Background The therapeutic landscape for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has expanded in recent years. The anti-TNF drug adalimumab remains one of the most commonly prescribed treatments. However, rates of loss of response to adalimumab are significant. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) has emerged as a tool to prevent loss of response to treatment but there is no consensus on the optimum TDM testing strategy., 2 testing strategies are commonly used - proactive TDM (pTDM), performed during sustained clinical response and reactive TDM (rTDM), performed following loss of response. The aim of this work was to compare adalimumab drug levels (DL) and drug survival (DS) for patients exposed to pTDM compared to rTDM testing strategies. Methods Data for patients with IBD, treated with adalimumab, and exposed to TDM, was extracted from the Scottish Biologic TDM database. Patients were assigned to pTDM or rTDM groups based on the indication of their first TDM test. Prescribing information was extracted from the NHS Scotland Safe Haven homecare prescribing database. Homecare delivery dates were used to infer start and end dates of adalimumab treatment. Where adalimumab start date was before, 2017, a start date of, 1/1/2017 was used to coincide with the introduction of the Scottish TDM service. The study period was, 1/1/2017 to, 1/3/2020 giving a maximum duration of drug exposure of, 38 months. The most recent drug level was used for each patient to reflect the impact of the TDM strategy employed. SPSS was used to perform statistical analysis. Results 367 patients were included for analysis, 190 males and, 177 females, 262 with Crohn’s disease and, 105 with Ulcerative Colitis., 314 patients were assigned to the pTDM group, and, 53 to the rTDM group. The mean DL across both groups was, 9.5 mcg/ml, with no significant difference seen between pTDM and rTDM groups (p=0.642). Median DS in the pTDM group was, 21 months versus, 15.6 months in the rTDM group. 277 patients (75.5%) remained on treatment at the end of the study, 244 (77.7%) in the pTDM group, versus, 33 (62.3%) in the rTDM group. DS was significantly higher in the pTDM group compared to the rTDM (p=0.004) group (Fig., 1), with divergence of the survival curve seen after, 6 months. Conclusion pTDM has been clearly favoured by clinicians from the outset of the TDM service. Whilst our data shows that DLs do not vary significantly between TDM groups, importantly, the DS with adalimumab is longer with pTDM as part of routine clinical care, when compared to rTDM. Further evaluation of clinical outcomes including steroid prescription, hospital admissions and surgery rates in the context of pTDM and rTDM strategies is therefore warranted, and in progress.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.