BackgroundEvidence supports use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in improving efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our objective was to assess attitudes and barriers towards TDM use with anti-TNF’s in the UK.MethodsA 17-question survey was distributed to members of the British Society of Gastroenterology by email.ResultsOf 243 respondents (51.6% male), 237 respondents met inclusion criteria. Of these, 46% were consultants (gastroenterologist, GI), 39.2% IBD nurse specialists (clinical nurse specialists, CNS), 14.8% registrars. TDM is used by 96.9% for secondary loss of response; 72.5% for primary non-response and 54.1% used TDM proactively. Barriers were time lag in receiving results (49.8%), lack of awareness of guidelines (46.4%) and cost (29.9%). Clinicians working at a teaching hospital (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.71 to 9.8), IBD CNS and GI registrars (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 10 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 7.2, respectively) were more likely to use TDM. Clinicians practising for >20 years (OR 4.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 41.8) and a large volume IBD practice (>50% IBD patients per month) were more likely to use TDM (OR 45.7, 95% CI 7.5 to 275). Proactive TDM, was more likely to be used in tertiary care (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.1), IBD CNS (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.1) and clinicians managing >50% IBD patients per month (OR 10.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 90.3). Clinicians with 5–9 years of experience in practice were more likely to use proactive TDM (OR 2.6 and CI 1.04 to 6.4).ConclusionValidation of point of care and lower cost assays, reduced time lag from test to result, lower cost of testing and dissemination of current recommendations may further optimise treatment strategies.

Background: Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy is an established treatment for moderate-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). Recent network meta-analyses of controlled trial data have indicated a superiority of intravenous drugs (infliximab) over subcutaneous (adalimumab). We conducted a retrospective multi-centre cohort study to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two drugs.Methods: Patients with UC administered infliximab or adalimumab as their first biologic, identified from the therapy databases of five UK hospitals, were included, if they had completed induction and were on maintenance treatment. Patients receiving infliximab as 'rescue' therapy for acute severe UC were excluded. The primary end-points for comparison were the number of patients remaining on initial therapy (infliximab or adalimumab) at 52 weeks and the number of patients in clinical remission at 52 weeks (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity [SCCAI] score ≤ 3).Results: Seventy-eight infliximab and 63 adalimumab patients were analysed. At 52 weeks, 83% of infliximab patients and 59% of adalimumab patients remained on therapy (P = 0.001). At 52 weeks, 62% of the infliximab group were in clinical remission compared to 32% of the adalimumab group (P = 0.0004). Primary nonresponse was reported in 24% of adalimumab patients and 5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in colectomy rates or hospital admission for acute flares at 52 weeks. Conclusions:Our real-world results affirm the findings of network meta-analyses of clinical trials, suggesting that infliximab is superior to adalimumab in the maintenance of remission in UC up to 52 weeks. How to cite this article: Kronsten VT, Colwill MJ, Nayeemuddin S, et al. A 'real-world' retrospective multi-centre cohort study comparing infliximab and adalimumab for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. GastroHep.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract