How close are we to a success stratification tool for improving biological therapy in ulcerative colitis?

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1080/14712598.2024.2371049
Panu Wetwittayakhlang, Gynter Kotrri, Talat Bessissow, Peter L Lakatos
{"title":"How close are we to a success stratification tool for improving biological therapy in ulcerative colitis?","authors":"Panu Wetwittayakhlang, Gynter Kotrri, Talat Bessissow, Peter L Lakatos","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2371049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biological therapies have become the standard treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, clinical remission rates post-induction therapy remain modest at 40-50%, with many initial responders losing response over time. Current treatment strategies frequently rely on a 'trial and error' approach, leading to prolonged periods of ineffective and costly therapies for patients, accompanied by associated treatment complications.</p><p><strong>Area covered: </strong>This review discusses current evidence on risk stratification tools for predicting therapeutic efficacy and minimizing adverse events in UC management. Recent studies have identified predictive factors for biologic therapy response. In the context of personalized medicine, the goal is to identify patients at high risk of progression and complications, as well as those likely to respond to specific therapies. Essential risk stratification tools include clinical decision-making aids, biomarkers, genomics, multi-omics factors, endoscopic, imaging, and histological assessments.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Employing risk stratification tools to predict therapeutic response and prevent treatment-related complications is essential for precision medicine in the biological management of UC. These tools are necessary to select the most suitable treatment for each individual patient, thereby enhancing efficacy and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"433-441"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2371049","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Biological therapies have become the standard treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, clinical remission rates post-induction therapy remain modest at 40-50%, with many initial responders losing response over time. Current treatment strategies frequently rely on a 'trial and error' approach, leading to prolonged periods of ineffective and costly therapies for patients, accompanied by associated treatment complications.

Area covered: This review discusses current evidence on risk stratification tools for predicting therapeutic efficacy and minimizing adverse events in UC management. Recent studies have identified predictive factors for biologic therapy response. In the context of personalized medicine, the goal is to identify patients at high risk of progression and complications, as well as those likely to respond to specific therapies. Essential risk stratification tools include clinical decision-making aids, biomarkers, genomics, multi-omics factors, endoscopic, imaging, and histological assessments.

Expert opinion: Employing risk stratification tools to predict therapeutic response and prevent treatment-related complications is essential for precision medicine in the biological management of UC. These tools are necessary to select the most suitable treatment for each individual patient, thereby enhancing efficacy and safety.

我们离改进溃疡性结肠炎生物疗法的成功分层工具还有多远?
简介:生物疗法已成为治疗溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的标准疗法:生物疗法已成为治疗溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的标准疗法。然而,诱导治疗后的临床缓解率仍然只有 40-50%,许多最初有反应的患者随着时间的推移会失去反应。目前的治疗策略往往依赖于 "反复试验 "的方法,导致患者长期接受无效且昂贵的治疗,并伴有相关的治疗并发症:本综述讨论了在 UC 管理中预测疗效和减少不良事件的风险分层工具的现有证据。最近的研究发现了生物疗法反应的预测因素。在个性化医疗的背景下,我们的目标是识别病情进展和并发症的高风险患者,以及可能对特定疗法产生反应的患者。基本的风险分层工具包括临床决策辅助工具、生物标记物、基因组学、多组学因素、内窥镜、成像和组织学评估:采用风险分层工具来预测治疗反应和预防治疗相关并发症,对于 UC 生物治疗中的精准医疗至关重要。这些工具是为每位患者选择最适合的治疗方法所必需的,从而提高疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development. The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease. The journal welcomes: Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results; Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信