4. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Monoclonal Antibodies in Psoriasis
Treatments for an immune-mediated inflammatory disease, such as psoriasis, have been enhanced with the development of biologics. However, some patients are not able to achieve an adequate clinical response to mAb-based therapy. Some patients present an insufficient response in the induction phase of the treatment, which is called primary non-response, or after initial clinical benefit, they lose the ability to respond, which is called secondary non-response
[47][48][115,116]. The IIV of the clinical response to standard biologic doses in patients with psoriasis may be explained by differences in the amount of drug available at the target tissue, which in turn is induced by adherence, physiological and genetic mechanisms, and PK covariates, such as BW and drug immunogenicity
[49][50][117,118]. Increasing evidence indicates that a way to explain all these concerns about mAb could be TDM.
The term TDM was defined in 1997 by Watson et al. as the measurement of a prescribed xenobiotic in serum or biological fluids at a single or multiple time points, with a view to influencing prescription and individualizing the dosage regimen to achieve maximal clinical efficacy and minimize adverse effects
[51][119]. Distinction should be made between reactive and proactive TDM. Reactive TDM is performed in patients failing treatment in order to guide decision-making, whereas proactive TDM is performed in responding patients to optimize therapy and potentially prevent future flare-ups and loss–of–response
[52][120]. The implementation of TDM is essential to define the optimal dose ranges for each patient for a given biologic in psoriasis. The TDM for biological agents in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases involves the measurement of drug levels and ADA. Dose increase, interval shortening, and/or the addition of an immunomodulator are proposed, with subsequent re-evaluation of the drug concentration until the therapeutic goals are achieved
[36][41].
In the last decade, the data in favor of TDM in psoriasis are growing. Based on the distribution of a survey among dermatologists who participated in Belgian Dermatology Days 2019 and Skin Inflammation & Psoriasis International Network Congress 2019, Schots et al.
[53][121] indicated that 70% of the total study cohort admitted the need for TDM, implying the necessity in the daily dermatology routine for active interaction about the accessibility, utility, and application of TDM assays. However, over the years, there has been much confusion about what exposure metrics are informative in patients with psoriasis. Most
of th
ave been e studies reported in the literature have measured drug levels, but very little information has been used to evaluate the relationship between the mAb levels and clinical response to treatment
[54][122]. Therefore, the selection of TDM in mAb for psoriasis may be beneficial due to the large IIV observed in clinical trials, its chronic administration that leads to the appearance of time-dependent changes in PK or PD parameters, and the role of disease progression in the increase of clearance and decrease in the response over time.
The attempts to establish therapeutic ranges and the incidence of ADA of some mAbs employed for the treatment of psoriasis are shown
in Table 5. Takahashi et al.
[55][123] identified the infliximab C
trough for responder patients at 0.92 μg/mL. Recently, the NORwegian DRUg Monitoring study was published
[56][124] to assess the efficacy of TDM in patients on infliximab treatment regarding the achievement of remission, as well as to maintain immune-mediated inflammatory disease control. Additionally, among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab, proactive TDM was more effective than treatment without TDM in sustaining disease control without disease worsening
[57][125]. For adalimumab, Menting et al.
[58][113] defined a window based on C
trough from 3.51 to 7.00 μg/mL corresponding to the optimal clinical response. This window was confirmed by the Psoriasis Stratification to Optimize Relevant Therapy (PSORT) consortium in a large multicenter prospective study
[54][122]. Other studies have shown how early measurement of the adalimumab C
trough levels could help to predict the possibilities of responses
[54][59][60][122,126,127].
A pilot study estimated a negative correlation between PASI and the trough secukinumab concentrations during maintenance therapy, suggesting no clinically relevant relationship between C
trough and PASI. On the other hand, a minimal effective C
trough of 33.2 μm/mL for achieving PASI ≤ 2 was proposed based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis
[61][128]. Menting et al.
[62][129] reported low and variable trough concentration levels of ustekinumab, which were not correlated with clinical response. However, the studies by Toro-Montecinos et al.
[63][130] and Van Den Berghe et al.
[64][131] found an inverse correlation between the absolute PASI score and ustekinumab serum concentrations measured at week six and week four, respectively. These contradictory results have not made it possible to reach a consensus for the ustekinumab concentration–response relationship. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated how early serum ustekinumab levels post-injection monitoring contribute to timely identifying under-exposed patients who might benefit from treatment optimization
[65][64][66][77,131,132]. E–R association data in psoriasis is limited for certolizumab pegol, brodalumab, ixekizumab
[67][68][69][87,88,133], guselkumab
[70][96], tildrakizumab
[71][102], and risankizumab
[72][134].