Adherence to therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on subcutaneous biologic therapy

Czech version

Authors: M. Kolář; M. Lukáš
Authors‘ workplace: Klinické a výzkumné centrum pro střevní záněty, Klinické centrum ISCARE a. s. a 1. LF UK v Praze
Published in: Gastroent Hepatol 2024; 78(6): 483-491
Category: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccgh2024483

Overview

Introduction: Nonadherence is a problem in the treatment of chronic diseases including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and according to the literature, adherence is not sufficient in a quarter of patients. The consequence is an increased risk of treatment failure and disease relapse. Non-adherence plays a significant role in the case of home application of subcutaneous biological therapy (BT). The aim of this study is to evaluate the adherence of conventionally monitored IBD patients with subcutaneous BT in comparison with the use of telemedicine monitoring. Methods: Retrospective data from a single IBD centre on the frequency of visits and medication dispensed in patients were used to assess adherence, with the calculation of the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR). A cohort of patients managed using the IBD Assistant platform, with activated online notifications when an application was required, was compared with a control group of conventionally monitored IBD patients matched by treatment type, diagnosis, gender and age. A secondary endpoint was monitoring of serum drug levels in a subpopulation of adalimumab patients. Results: The study included 69 patients with subcutaneous BT active between July 2022 and July 2023 on the IBD Assistant platform. A control group of 138 conventionally monitored patients was matched to this group in a 2: 1 ratio. The mean age of the patients was 40.6 ± 11.1 years; 43.5% were male. Crohn‘s disease was diagnosed in 83.1% of patients. Adalimumab was administered to 91.3% of patients, 7.2% of patients received subcutaneous vedolizumab and 1.5% of patients received golimumab. Median follow-up was 517 days. Adherence as assessed by MPR was high in both the telemedicine and conventional groups (0.960 ± 0.084 vs. 0.967 ± 0.094; P = 0.6123). The proportion of non-adherent patients with MPR < 0.86 was 8.8% and 8.0%, respectively (P = NS). In the whole cohort, adherence was significantly lower in women and tended to be higher in patients with ulcerative colitis. Patient age did not play a role. The proportion of nonadherent patients was significantly higher in patients with low levels of adalimumab (36.8 vs. 4.9%; P = 0.0002). Conclusion: Although the overall adherence to subcutaneous BT is relatively high and independent of patient follow-up, MPR assessment can help identify at-risk patient groups. Low drug (adalimumab) levels are the result of nonadherence in one third of cases.

Keywords:

inflammatory bowel disease – biological therapy – adherence – medication possession ratio

Sources

1. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Better pharmacovigilance for all. 2017 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //view.publitas.com/uppsala-monitoring-centre/uppsala-reports-76_web/ page/1.

2. WHO. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. 2003 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //iris.who.int/handle/10665/ 42682.

3. Dušek L, Ngo O, Májek O et al. Díl II. – epidemiologie idiopatických střevních zánětů v české populaci: dostupné datové zdroje, prevalence léčených pacientů a celková mortalita. Gastroent Hepatol 2019; 73 (2): 163–166. doi: 10.14735/amgh2019163.

4. Lukáš M. Idiopatické střevní záněty. Nové trendy a mezioborové zkušenosti. Praha: Grada Publishing 2021.

5. Marsal J, Barreiro-de Acosta M, Blumenstein I et al. Management of non-response and loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9: 897936. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.897936.

6. Malíčková K, Pešinová V, Bortlík M et al. Telemedicína a idiopatické střevní záněty – výsledky pilotního projektu IBD Asistent. Gastroent Hepatol 2020; 74 (1): 18–27. doi: 10.14735/amgh 202018.

7. Anghel LA, Farcas AM, Oprean RN. An overview of the common methods used to measure treatment adherence. Med Pharm Rep 2019; 92 (2): 117–122. doi: 10.15386/mpr- 1201.

8. Jackson CA, Clatworthy J, Robinson A et al. Factors associated with non-adherence to oral medication for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105 (3): 525–539. doi: 10.1038/ajg. 2009.685.

9. Lopez A, Billioud V, Peyrin-Biroulet C et al. Adherence to anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013; 19 (7): 1528–1533. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0b013e31828 132cb.

10. Chan W, Chen A, Tiao D et al. Medication adherence in inflammatory bowel disease. Intest Res 2017; 15 (4): 434–445. doi: 10.5217/ir.2017. 15.4.434.

11. Govani SM, Noureldin M, Higgins PDR et al. Defining an optimal adherence threshold for patients taking subcutaneous anti-TNFs for inflammatory bowel diseases. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113 (2): 276–282. doi: 10.1038/ajg. 2017.438.

12. Wentworth BJ, Buerlein RC, Tuskey AG et al. Nonadherence to biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018; 24 (9): 2053–2061. doi: 10.1093/ibd/ izy102.

13. Shah NB, Haydek J, Slaughter J et al. Risk factors for medication nonadherence to self-injectable biologic therapy in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2020; 26 (2): 314–320. doi: 10.1093/ibd/ izz253.

14. Kane S, Dixon L. Adherence rates with infliximab therapy in Crohn‘s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24 (7): 1099–1103. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03092.x.

15. Kitney L, Turner JM, Spady D et al. Predictors of medication adherence in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease patients at the stollery children’s hospital. Can J Gastroenterol 2009; 23 (12): 811–815. doi: 10.1155/2009/53 6860.

16. Duncan J, Sastrillo M, Baker J et al. An audit of adherence to anti-tnf therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2011; 60 (1): A141–A142. doi: 10.1136/gut.2011.2393 01.300.

17. Billioud V, Laharie D, Filippi J et al. Adherence to adalimumab therapy in Crohn’s disease: a French multicenter experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011; 17 (1): 152–159. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21491.

18. McDonald C, Kerr H, Gibbons E et al. Higher ustekinumab levels in maintenance therapy are associated with greater mucosal healing and mucosal response in Crohn‘s disease: an experience of 2 IBD centers. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2024; 30 (3): 423–428. doi: 10.1093/ibd/ izad073.

19. Singh S, Dulai PS, Vande Casteele N et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019; 50 (8): 848–857. doi: 10.1111/apt. 15484.

20. Kuriakose Kuzhiyanjal AJ, Nigam GB, Antoniou GA et al. Management of inflammatory bowel disease using E-health technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crohns Colitis 2023; 17 (10): 1596–1613. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad075.

Poděkování

Za pomoc při zpracování dat patří poděkování Kateřině Vlkové a Janě Horutové z centra ISCARE.

Doručeno/Submitted: 1. 12. 2024

Přijato/Accepted: 9. 12. 2024

Korespondenční autor

MUDr. Martin Kolář

Klinické a výzkumné centrum pro střevní záněty

Klinické centrum ISCARE a. s. a 1. LF UK v Praze

Českomoravská 19

190 00 Praha 9

kolar@iscare.cz