阿达木单抗
医学
英夫利昔单抗
治疗药物监测
药效学
药品
内科学
药代动力学
代理终结点
槽水位
中止
炎症性肠病
药理学
疾病
移植
他克莫司
作者
David Gibson,Mark G. Ward,Clarissa Rentsch,Antony B. Friedman,Kirstin M. Taylor,Miles Sparrow,Peter R. Gibson
摘要
Abstract Background Clinical application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to optimise anti‐TNF therapies in patients with IBD depends upon target ranges. Aims To review methodology used to determine therapeutic ranges and critically compare and contrast its application to infliximab and adalimumab. Methods A systematic review was performed, and relevant literature was summarised and critically examined. Results Upper limits of the therapeutic range are determined by toxicity, a plateau response and cost. Lower limits are determined by optimal concentration on the target of action in vitro and/or in vivo, or by correlation of drug levels with clinical efficacy using area‐under‐receiver‐operator‐curve (AUROC) analysis. In 43 studies, there were huge variations in time at which infliximab and adalimumab levels were measured, the end‐points used (clinical remission to mucosal healing), the clinical setting (active disease vs maintenance phase) and the reason for TDM (proactive vs reactive). In the maintenance phase for infliximab, lower trough limits 2.8‐5.7 µg/mL are reported depending upon end‐points used, with consistent AUROC 0.68‐0.77. Adalimumab TDM targets are even less consistent with a lower limit 5.9‐11.8 µg/mL (AUROC 0.66‐0.83) in some studies, but no cut‐off can be identified that is significantly associated with outcome in others, related to inherent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences, and heterogeneity of study design. Conclusions Evidence for exposure‐response relationship is stronger for infliximab than adalimumab. Due to heterogeneity in settings for drug level measurements, therapeutic ranges vary. These factors need to be taken into account when interpreting the evidence and extending this to therapeutic strategies for IBD patients.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI