P617 Dual biologic therapy in pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Abbas, R.(1)*;Ibrahim, N.(1);Elawad, M.(1);Al-Mudahka, F.(1);Abdelrhman, H.(1);K.Akobeng, A.(1);
(1)Sidra medicine, Gastroenterology/Hepatology/Nutrition, Doha, Qatar;
Background
There is paucity of data on the effectiveness of combination biologic agents as an option for children with refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is inadequately controlled by biologic monotherapy. The aims of this study were to determine the effectiveness and safety of combination biologic use in pediatrics IBD.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study of children with IBD seen at Sidra Medicine and who received combination biologic therapy from October 2018 to April 2022. The diagnosis of IBD was established according to the revised Porto criteria. Children with IBD on two or more biologics were identified from our IBD database and their electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients included in the study must have been on combination biologic therapy for at least two months. Relevant clinical and demographic data were collected.
Results
Out of the 211 patients in our IBD database, we identified a total of 14 patients who had received dual biologic therapy within the study period. 3 patients were excluded because they had received dual biologic therapy for less than 2 months. 11 patients with IBD met our inclusion criteria and were included in this study. All 11 patients had Crohn’s disease. Overall, 7 patients (63%) were male, the median age at the start of starting combination therapy was 15.1 years (IQR 13.9 to 17.4), and the median disease duration was 2.3 years (IQR 1.4 to 3.2). Patients had been on the first biologic for a median of 20.3 months (IQR 13.0 to 32.3) before the addition of the second biologic. The reasons for dual biologic therapy included active disease, failure of single biological therapy, and development of complications. The patients had failed therapy with a median of two (range 1-3) prior biological medications. Concomitant dermatological disease (psoriasis) was present in one patient (9.1%). After a median follow-up of 5.2 months (IQR 2.9-5.5), median PCDAI significantly reduced from 22.5(IQR 16.75-30) to 5(1.25-13.75) {P<0.001}…Figure 1. Median fecal calprotectin reduced from 1534 (1361-1612) to 489 (379-658) {P<0.001}. No adverse events were noted.
Conclusion
Dual biologic therapy was associated with clinical and biomarker improvements in patients with Crohn’s disease who previously failed at least one single biologic. Dual biologic treatment was not associated with adverse events during the study period. Dual biologic therapy may be an attractive strategy but the lack of randomized controlled trials as well as long-term safety concerns means that there is a need for further trials on this subject. Future studies should assess risk: benefit ratios, safety, and efficacy of specific combinations of biologic use in IBD.