Ulcerative colitis (UC) is part of the inflammatory bowels diseases, and moderate to severe UC patients can be treated with anti-tumour necrosis α monoclonal antibodies, including infliximab (IFX). Even though treatment of UC patients by IFX has been in place for over a decade, many gaps in modelling of IFX PK in this population remain. This is even more true for acute severe UC (ASUC) patients for which early prediction of IFX pharmacokinetic (PK) could highly improve treatment outcome. Thus, this review aims to compile and analyse published population PK models of IFX in UC and ASUC patients, and to assess the current knowledge on disease activity impact on IFX PK. For this, a semi-systematic literature search was conducted, from which 26 publications including a population PK model analysis of UC patients receiving IFX therapy were selected. Amongst those, only four developed a model specifically for UC patients, and only three populations included severe UC patients. Investigations of disease activity impact on PK were reported in only 4 of the 14 models selected. In addition, the lack of reported model codes and assessment of predictive performance make the use of published models in a clinical setting challenging. Thus, more comprehensive investigation of PK in UC and ASUC is needed as well as more adequate reports on developed models and their evaluation in order to apply them in a clinical setting.

Background Anti-TNFα monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a well-established treatment for patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). However, subtherapeutic concentrations of mAbs have been related to a loss of response during the first year of therapy1. Therefore, an appropriate dosing strategy is crucial to prevent the underexposure of mAbs for those patients. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of different dosing strategies (fixed dose or body size descriptor adapted) on drug exposure and the target concentration attainment for two different anti-TNFα mAbs: infliximab (IFX, body weight (BW)-based dosing) and certolizumab pegol (CZP, fixed dosing). For this purpose, a comprehensive pharmacokinetic (PK) simulation study was performed. Methods A virtual population of 1000 clinically representative CD patients was generated based on the distribution of CD patient characteristics from an in-house clinical database (n = 116). Seven dosing regimens were investigated: fixed dose and per BW, lean BW (LBW), body surface area, height, body mass index and fat-free mass. The individual body size-adjusted doses were calculated from patient generated body size descriptor values. Then, using published PK models for IFX and CZP in CD patients2,3, for each patient, 1000 concentration–time profiles were simulated to consider the typical profile of a specific patient as well as the range of possible individual profiles due to unexplained PK variability across patients. For each dosing strategy, the variability in maximum and minimum mAb concentrations (Cmax and Cmin, respectively), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the per cent of patients reaching target concentration were assessed during maintenance therapy. Results For IFX and CZP, Cmin showed the highest variability between patients (CV ≈110% and CV ≈80%, respectively) with a similar extent across all dosing strategies. For IFX, the per cent of patients reaching the target (Cmin = 5 µg/ml) was similar across all dosing strategies (~15%). For CZP, the per cent of patients reaching the target average concentration of 17 µg/ml ranged substantially (52–71%), being the highest for LBW-adjusted dosing. Conclusion By using a PK simulation approach, different dosing regimen of IFX and CZP revealed the highest variability for Cmin, the most commonly used PK parameter guiding treatment decisions, independent upon dosing regimen. Our results demonstrate similar target attainment with fixed dosing of IFX compared with currently recommended BW-based dosing. For CZP, the current fixed dosing strategy leads to comparable percentage of patients reaching target as the best performing body size-adjusted dosing (66% vs. 71%, respectively). References