Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):937-949.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.052. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been proposed to improve outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α antagonists. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing proactive TDM with conventional management in patients with IBD.
We identified RCTs in patients with IBD treated with TNFα antagonists comparing proactive TDM (routine assessments of trough concentration with dose adjustments to maintain predetermined trough concentration, regardless of disease activity) with conventional management (clinically driven dose adjustments). The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical remission. Certainty of evidence was appraised using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.
On meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (8 RCTs in adults, and focusing on maintenance phase), there was no significant difference in the risk of failing to maintain clinical remission in patients who underwent proactive TDM (267/709; 38%) vs conventional management (292/696; 42%) (relative risk [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.13) with moderate heterogeneity (inconsistency index = 36%) (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; low certainty evidence), with no differences in patients with Crohn's disease (RR, 0.87 ; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15) and ulcerative colitis (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Disease duration, concomitant immunomodulators, disease activity at baseline, and optimization of therapy before randomization did not modify this association. No differences were observed in risk of developing antidrug antibodies or serious adverse events. Patients in the proactive TDM arm were more likely to undergo dose escalation (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25-1.94).
Routine proactive TDM to target biologic concentration to specific thresholds, regardless of disease activity, did not offer clinical benefit in patients with IBD treated with TNFα antagonists in RCTs conducted to date. We cannot exclude the possibility of benefit in disease subtypes and phases of therapy (induction) not represented in these RCT populations.
主动治疗药物监测(TDM)已被提议用于改善接受肿瘤坏死因子(TNF)α拮抗剂治疗的炎症性肠病(IBD)患者的结局。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了 IBD 患者中主动 TDM 与常规治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们在接受 TNFα 拮抗剂治疗的 IBD 患者中确定了 RCT,比较了主动 TDM(常规评估谷浓度并调整剂量以维持预定谷浓度,无论疾病活动如何)与常规治疗(临床驱动的剂量调整)。主要结局是未能维持临床缓解。使用推荐评估、制定与评价分级系统评估证据确定性。
对 9 项 RCT 的荟萃分析(8 项成人 RCT,主要关注维持期)显示,主动 TDM 组(267/709;38%)与常规治疗组(292/696;42%)患者未能维持临床缓解的风险无显著差异(相对风险 [RR],0.96;95%置信区间 [CI],0.81-1.13),存在中度异质性(一致性指数为 36%)(推荐评估、制定与评价分级系统;低确定性证据),在克罗恩病(RR,0.87;95%CI,0.66-1.15)和溃疡性结肠炎(RR,0.88;95%CI,0.72-1.07)患者中无差异。疾病持续时间、同时使用免疫调节剂、基线疾病活动度以及随机分组前的治疗优化均未改变这种关联。未观察到发生抗药物抗体或严重不良事件的风险差异。主动 TDM 组的患者更有可能增加剂量(RR,1.56;95%CI,1.25-1.94)。
在迄今进行的 RCT 中,针对 TNFα 拮抗剂治疗的 IBD 患者,针对特定阈值的常规主动 TDM 以靶向生物浓度,而不考虑疾病活动度,并未提供临床获益。我们不能排除在这些 RCT 人群未代表的疾病亚型和治疗阶段(诱导期)获益的可能性。