Quality evaluation of Chinese and global guidelines/consensus for TDM of anti-TNF-α agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
- VernacularTitle:对炎症性肠病患者开展抗TNF-α制剂TDM的国内外指南/共识的质量评价
- Author:
Tanghui JIN
1
;
Mengxin ZHU
2
;
Cheng XIE
1
;
Fan XIA
1
;
Di YU
1
;
Yue LI
1
;
Yun LI
1
;
Qinhua XI
2
;
Jianguo ZHU
1
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University，Jiangsu Suzhou 215006
2. Dept. of Gastroenterology，the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University，Jiangsu Suzhou 215006，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
inflammatory bowel disease;
anti-TNF-α;
therapeutic drug monitoring;
guidelines;
consensus
- From:
China Pharmacy
2024;35(4):481-487
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the quality of guidelines/consensus on therapeutic drug monitoring （TDM） of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α （TNF-α） in patients with inflammatory bowel disease （IBD） in China and globally. METHODS PubMed， Embase， CNKI， Wanfang data， VIP， and release websites of guidelines/consensus in China and globally were searched to collect guidelines/expert consensus on TDM with anti-TNF-α for IBD patients. The search period was from database establishment to June 2023. After two investigators independently screened the literature and extracted the data， the methodological quality of the included guidelines/consensuses was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ. The main recommendations of the included guidelines/consensuses were summarized. RESULTS A total of 9 articles were included， 3 were guidelines and 6 were expert consensus. The standardized percentages of the 9 guidelines/consensus in the 6 dimensions （scope and aims， participants， rigor of formulation， clarity of expression， application， and editorial independence） were 90.43%， 41.98%， 52.55%， 85.49%， 19.00%， and 76.85%， respectively. Eight guidelines/consensus had a recommendation of grade B and one consensus of grade C. The main recommendations involve TDM application scenarios， threshold ranges， strategy adjustments， detection methods， and interpretation of results. Most guidelines/consensus recommend passive TDM for non-responders. It is recommended to set the TDM concentration range according to the expected treatment results and make strategy adjustments in combination with the disease condition and TDM results. Additionally， the same test method is recommended for the same patient. Some guidelines/consensus hold that no differences were noted in the interpretation of results between biosimilar and original drug. CONCLUSIONS The overall quality of the included guidelines/consensus was fair， with relatively consistent recommendation. Clinicians need to understand the characteristics and limitations of TDM with this class of drugs， and interpret and apply results of TDM in combination with specific clinical treatment goals.
