Pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract, with rising global incidence and prevalence. Over the past two decades, biologics have added to the therapeutic armamentarium and revolutionized the approach to treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. The available biologics include monoclonal antibodies which target inflammatory cytokines (anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha, anti-interleukin 12/23) or recruitment of leucocytes to the gastrointestinal tract (anti-alpha4beta7 integrin) and small molecules (Janus kinase inhibitors, sphingosine 1-phosphate-inhibitors) which modify the proinflammatory signaling. Considering their potential disease-modifying ability, recent pediatric guidelines from the West have advocated upfront use of biologics in appropriate clinical scenarios as a top-down approach rather than the conventional step-up approach. Although real-world studies are available regarding the clinical efficacy of biologics in PIBD, there is paucity of long-term outcome and safety data in children. Also, little information is available about the best approach in the newly industrialized - developing countries where PIBD is rising but at the same time, infections are prevalent and resources are limited. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety profile of biologics and small molecule drugs and discuss the challenges in the management of PIBD, especially in the developing world, and future directions.

The therapeutic failure of infliximab therapy remains a challenge in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and dose optimization is often required. Accelerated or intensified regimes showed value in treating patients in the acute setting with high CRP or low albumin levels, which are suggested by recent guidelines; however, evidence is weak. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) trough levels and antibodies, showed value during maintenance therapy, but not in induction and can guide clinical decisions in patients that might be undertreated with the standard dosing regimen. Combining the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring with a Bayesian forecasting methodology to calculate drug clearance can help on calculating the optimal infliximab dose for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) on both the induction and maintenance phase. This will help to identify those who need intensification of their current regime to boost the therapeutic effect and those who are non-responders. This review aims to summarize the recent literature regarding infliximab precision dosing in IBD patients using forecasting methodology.

Multiple studies in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents have shown that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) during the maintenance phase leads to improved outcomes. We aimed to assess whether accelerated (IFX) administration during induction resulted in improved outcomes.

This retrospective study included CD patients aged 5-17.9 years that were treated with IFX. We compared outcomes of patients treated during induction with 5-8 mg/kg dosing at Weeks 0, 2, 6, and 14 (Group 1), versus accelerated dosing (≥8 mg/kg and/or >4 infusions until Week 14, Group 2) of IFX. Primary outcome was steroid-free clinical remission by Week 52.

Sixty-eight patients were included, of whom seven discontinued IFX before Week 14, due to infusion reactions, immunogenic failure, or primary nonresponse. Comparison of Group 1 (n = 25) and Group 2 (n = 36) showed similar clinical characteristics, as well as inflammatory markers, at IFX initiation. Despite receiving significantly more IFX, and reaching a higher trough level by Week 14 (10.3 ± 1.2 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7, p < 0.001), the median Pediatric Crohn's disease Activity Index (PCDAI) was slightly higher in Group 2 versus Group 1 (14 [5-20] vs. 5 [0-15], p = 0.02). However, at Weeks 26 and 52 the PCDAI and inflammatory markers were comparable between the groups. Moreover, about 70% in both groups achieved the desirable trough IFX levels by Week 52.

Accelerated IFX dosing during induction did not result in improved outcomes up to 12 months follow-up. Prospective studies are required to determine the exact timing in which proactive TDM should be applied.

Precision medicine is part of 5 focus areas of the Challenges in IBD Research 2024 research document, which also includes preclinical human IBD mechanisms, environmental triggers, novel technologies, and pragmatic clinical research. Building on Challenges in IBD Research 2019, the current Challenges aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) research and deliver actionable approaches to address them with a focus on how these gaps can lead to advancements in interception, remission, and restoration for these diseases. The document is the result of multidisciplinary input from scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders, and represents a valuable resource for patient-centric research prioritization. In particular, the precision medicine section is focused on the main research gaps in elucidating how to bring the best care to the individual patient in IBD. Research gaps were identified in biomarker discovery and validation for predicting disease progression and choosing the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Other gaps were identified in making the best use of existing patient biosamples and clinical data, developing new technologies to analyze large datasets, and overcoming regulatory and payer hurdles to enable clinical use of biomarkers. To address these gaps, the Workgroup suggests focusing on thoroughly validating existing candidate biomarkers, using best-in-class data generation and analysis tools, and establishing cross-disciplinary teams to tackle regulatory hurdles as early as possible. Altogether, the precision medicine group recognizes the importance of bringing basic scientific biomarker discovery and translating it into the clinic to help improve the lives of IBD patients.

Due to variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical outcomes of antimicrobial drug therapy vary between patients. As such, personalised medication management, considering both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, is a growing concept of interest in the field of infectious diseases. Therapeutic drug monitoring is used to adjust and individualise drug regimens until predefined pharmacokinetic exposure targets are achieved. Minimum inhibitory concentration (drug susceptibility) is the best available pharmacodynamic parameter but is associated with many limitations. Identification of other pharmacodynamic parameters is necessary. Repurposing diagnostic biomarkers as pharmacodynamic parameters to evaluate treatment response is attractive. When combined with therapeutic drug monitoring, it could facilitate making more informed dosing decisions. We believe the approach has potential and justifies further research.

The efficacy and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) monoclonal antibody therapy [adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX)] with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), which has been proposed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, are still controversial.

To determine the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody therapy with proactive TDM in patients with IBD and to determine which subtype of IBD patients is most suitable for proactive TDM interventions.

As of July 2023, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to compare anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody therapy with proactive TDM with therapy with reactive TDM or empiric therapy. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were used to determine the IBD patient subtype that achieved clinical remission and to determine the need for surgery.

This systematic review and meta-analysis yielded 13 studies after exclusion, and the baseline indicators were balanced. We found a significant increase in the number of patients who achieved clinical remission in the ADA [odds ratio (OR) = 1.416, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.196-1.676] and RCT (OR = 1.393, 95%CI: 1.182-1.641) subgroups and a significant decrease in the number of patients who needed surgery in the proactive vs reactive (OR = 0.237, 95%CI: 0.101-0.558) and IFX + ADA (OR = 0.137, 95%CI: 0.032-0.588) subgroups, and the overall risk of adverse events was reduced (OR = 0.579, 95%CI: 0.391-0.858) according to the pairwise meta-analysis. Moreover, the network meta-analysis results suggested that patients with IBD treated with ADA (OR = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.19-1.63) were more likely to undergo TDM, especially in comparison with patients with reactive TDM (OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.07-1.77).

Proactive TDM is more suitable for IBD patients treated with ADA and has obvious advantages over reactive TDM. We recommend proactive TDM in IBD patients who are treated with ADA.

In pediatric rheumatic diseases (PRD), adalimumab is dosed using fixed weight-based bands irrespective of methotrexate co-treatment, disease activity (DA) or other factors that might influence adalimumab pharmacokinetics (PK). In rheumatoid arthritis (RA) adalimumab exposure between 2-8 mg/L is associated with clinical response. PRD data on adalimumab is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze adalimumab PK and its variability in PRD treated with/without methotrexate.

A two-center prospective study in PRD patients aged 2-18 years treated with adalimumab and methotrexate (GA-M) or adalimumab alone (GA) for ≥ 12 weeks was performed. Adalimumab concentrations were collected 1-9 (maximum concentration; Cmax), and 10-14 days (minimum concentration; Cmin) during ≥ 12 weeks following adalimumab start. Concentrations were analyzed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (lower limit of quantification: 0.5 mg/L). Log-normalized Cmin were compared between GA-M and GA using a standard t-test.

Twenty-eight patients (14 per group), diagnosed with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (71.4%), non-infectious uveitis (25%) or chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (3.6%) completed the study. GA-M included more females (71.4%; GA 35.7%, p = 0.13). At first study visit, children in GA-M had a slightly longer exposure to adalimumab (17.8 months [IQR 9.6, 21.6]) compared to GA (15.8 months [IQR 8.5, 30.8], p = 0.8). Adalimumab dosing was similar between both groups (median dose 40 mg every 14 days) and observed DA was low. Children in GA-M had a 27% higher median overall exposure compared to GA, although median Cmin adalimumab values were statistically not different (p = 0.3). Cmin values ≥ 8 mg/L (upper limit RA) were more frequently observed in GA-M versus GA (79% versus 64%). Overall, a wide range of Cmin values was observed in PRD (0.5 to 26 mg/L).

This study revealed a high heterogeneity in adalimumab exposure in PRD. Adalimumab exposure tended to be higher with methotrexate co-treatment compared to adalimumab monotherapy although differences were not statistically significant. Most children showed adalimumab exposure exceeding those reported for RA with clinical response, particularly with methotrexate co-treatment. This highlights the need of further investigations to establish model-based personalized treatment strategies in PRD to avoid under- and overexposure.

NCT04042792 , registered 02.08.2019.