4.7 Review

Mechanisms behind efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in inflammatory bowel diseases

Journal

PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 159, Issue -, Pages 110-119

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.01.001

Keywords

Crohn's disease; IBD; Inflammatory pathways; TNF inhibitors; Ulcerative colitis

Funding

  1. Abbvie
  2. Biogaran
  3. BMS
  4. Boerhinger-Ingelheim
  5. Celltrion
  6. Ferring
  7. Genentech
  8. HAC-Pharma
  9. Hospira
  10. Index Pharmaceuticals
  11. Janssen
  12. Lilly
  13. Merck
  14. Mitsubishi
  15. Norgine
  16. Pfizer
  17. Pharmacosmos
  18. Pilege
  19. Takeda
  20. Therakos
  21. Tillots
  22. UCB-pharma
  23. Vifor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biological treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is successful in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). All TNF inhibitors antagonize the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-alpha but with varying efficacies in IBD. The variations in efficacy probably are caused by structural differences between the agents that affect their mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic properties. Several mechanisms have been proposed, such as modulation of the expression of pro-inflammatory mediators and a reduction in the number of activated immune cells. However, it seems that clinical efficacy is the result of a number of different mechanisms and that binding of transmembrane TNF by TNF inhibitors. Knowledge of the mechanisms of action has been obtained mainly through the use of in vitro assays that may differ significantly from the situation in vivo. This review discusses the available data on TNF inhibitors in order to identify mechanisms of importance for their efficacy in IBD. Thus, a better understanding of the mechanistic basis for clinical efficacy can lead to a more rational use of TNF inhibitors in the management of IBD. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available