Abstract
Introduction: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has proven to be a valuable strategy for optimizing biologic therapies, among which are anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatments in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In particular, reactive TDM has been shown to manage treatment failures more cost-effectively than empirical dose adjustments for anti-TNF drugs. However, several challenges currently impede the widespread adoption of TDM in clinical practice, particularly addressing the delay between sample collection and result availability. To overcome this limitation, the use of point-of-care technology tests (POCTs) is a potential solution. Point-of-care technology tests are medical diagnostic tests performed at the site of patient care to provide immediate results, allowing for quicker decision-making and treatment. The current standard of care (SOC) for drug level measurement relies on the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a method that is time-consuming and requires specialized personnel. This study aims to evaluate a novel, user-friendly, and efficient POCT method (ProciseDx Inc.) and compare its performance with the SOC ELISA in assessing infliximab and adalimumab levels in blood samples from IBD patients. Methods: In this prospective, single-center study, we collected blood samples from IBD patients, both CD and UC, receiving infliximab (87 IBD patients; 50% UC and 50% CD) or adalimumab (60 patients; 14% UC and 48% CD) and we analyzed the blood's drugs levels using both the ProciseDx Analyzer POC and the SOC ELISA. We examined the correlation between the two methods using statistical analyses, including the Deming regression test. Additionally, we assessed the ease of use, turnaround time, and overall practicality of the POCT in a clinical setting. Results: The ProciseDx test demonstrated a strong correlation with the SOC ELISA for measuring both infliximab and adalimumab levels. In particular, the overall correlation between the ProciseDx POCT and the ELISA assessments showed an r coefficient of 0.83 with an R squared value of 0.691 (95% CI 0.717-0.902) for IFX measurements, and an r coefficient of 0.85 with an R squared value of 0.739 (95% CI 0.720-0.930). Conclusions: the ProciseDx POC test offers significantly faster turnaround times and is more straightforward to use, making it a viable alternative for routine clinical monitoring. Despite its promising potential, further refinement and validation of the ProciseDx test are necessary to ensure its effectiveness across diverse patient populations and clinical settings. Future research should focus on optimizing the POC tests' performance and evaluating its long-term impact on IBD management.