Biologic Therapies in the ICU: Friend or Foe? Navigating the Risk-Benefit Balance in Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The increasing prevalence of patients receiving biologic therapies presents unique challenges for intensivists. These agents, while revolutionary in treating autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, significantly alter immune function and complicate critical care management.

Objective: To provide evidence-based guidance on managing patients receiving biologic therapies in the intensive care unit, focusing on infection risks, drug pharmacokinetics, and clinical decision-making regarding continuation or cessation.

Methods: Comprehensive review of current literature, clinical guidelines, and expert consensus on biologic therapy management in critical illness.

Results: Biologic agents substantially increase infection risk, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.2-3.5 depending on the agent and patient population. Critical care management requires careful risk stratification, understanding of drug half-lives, and individualized decision-making.

Conclusions: While biologics present significant challenges in the ICU, they can be managed safely with appropriate protocols, vigilant monitoring, and multidisciplinary collaboration.

Keywords: Biologics, Critical Care, Immunosuppression, Infection, TNF inhibitors, Interleukin inhibitors

Introduction

Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of autoimmune diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, and various malignancies. However, their immunomodulatory effects create a complex clinical scenario when patients require intensive care. The intensivist must balance the ongoing therapeutic benefits against potentially life-threatening complications, particularly severe infections and impaired immune responses to critical illness.

This review provides practical, evidence-based guidance for managing patients receiving biologic therapies in the ICU, addressing when these agents become more foe than friend and how to navigate the challenging decisions surrounding their continuation or cessation.

Classification and Mechanisms of Biologic Therapies

TNF-α Inhibitors

Agents: Infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, certolizumab
Mechanism: Block tumor necrosis factor-alpha, reducing inflammation but impairing host defense against intracellular pathogens
Half-life: Variable (1-20 days)
Key ICU concern: Increased risk of tuberculosis reactivation and fungal infections

Interleukin Inhibitors

IL-1 inhibitors: Anakinra, canakinumab
IL-6 inhibitors: Tocilizumab, sarilumab
IL-17 inhibitors: Secukinumab, ixekizumab
IL-23 inhibitors: Ustekinumab, guselkumab
Mechanism: Target specific inflammatory pathways
ICU relevance: Variable infection risk profiles; some may have protective effects in certain conditions

B-Cell Depleting Agents

Agents: Rituximab, ocrelizumab
Mechanism: CD20-mediated B-cell depletion
Duration of effect: 6-12 months
ICU concern: Prolonged hypogammaglobulinemia, increased viral infections

T-Cell Modulators

Agents: Abatacept (CTLA-4 Ig)
Mechanism: Blocks T-cell costimulation
ICU relevance: Broad immunosuppression with increased bacterial and viral infection risk

Infection Risks: The Primary Concern

Overall Infection Risk

Meta-analyses demonstrate that biologic therapies increase serious infection risk with pooled relative risks of:

TNF inhibitors: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.16-1.49)
Non-TNF biologics: 1.21 (95% CI: 1.02-1.43)
Combination therapy with conventional DMARDs: Up to 2.0-fold increased risk

Specific Pathogen Concerns

Bacterial Infections:

Increased risk of pneumonia, skin/soft tissue infections
Higher likelihood of atypical presentations
Delayed recognition due to blunted inflammatory response

Opportunistic Infections:

Tuberculosis reactivation (particularly with TNF inhibitors)
Invasive fungal infections (Histoplasma, Coccidioides, Aspergillus)
Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia
Viral reactivation (CMV, EBV, hepatitis B)

Healthcare-Associated Infections:

Increased risk of device-related infections
Higher mortality from nosocomial pneumonia
Challenging diagnosis due to immunosuppression

Pearl 1: The "Stealth Infection" Phenomenon

Patients on biologics may present with severe infections without classic signs of inflammation. Maintain high clinical suspicion even with normal white blood cell counts and minimal fever response.

Pharmacokinetics in Critical Illness

Drug Survival and Clearance

Critical illness significantly alters biologic pharmacokinetics:

Factors Affecting Drug Levels:

Increased vascular permeability → increased volume of distribution
Altered protein binding
Renal and hepatic dysfunction
Extracorporeal therapies (dialysis, ECMO)

Half-Life Considerations in ICU:

Short half-life agents (anakinra: 4-6 hours) → rapid clearance, consider continuing for acute inflammatory conditions
Medium half-life agents (etanercept: 3-5 days) → moderate persistence
Long half-life agents (rituximab: 18-32 days) → prolonged immunosuppression

Hack 1: The "Half-Life Rule"

For decision-making purposes, assume biologics with half-lives >7 days will have significant immunosuppressive effects for at least 4-6 weeks after the last dose, regardless of acute illness.

Clinical Decision-Making Framework

When to Continue Biologics

Scenario 1: Controlled Infection with Stable Patient

Well-defined infection source
Appropriate antimicrobial therapy initiated
Clinical improvement evident
Underlying condition requiring biologic is severe/life-threatening

Scenario 2: Inflammatory Conditions Requiring Ongoing Treatment

Severe inflammatory bowel disease with bleeding
Active rheumatoid arthritis with joint destruction
Psoriatic arthritis with severe functional impairment

Example Case: A 45-year-old woman with Crohn's disease on adalimumab presents with pneumonia. After 48 hours of appropriate antibiotics with clinical improvement, continuation of adalimumab may be considered to prevent IBD flare, especially if infection is community-acquired and responding well.

When to Hold/Discontinue Biologics

Absolute Indications:

Active, uncontrolled infection
Sepsis or septic shock
Suspected opportunistic infection
New fever of unknown origin
Planned major surgery with high infection risk

Relative Indications:

Multiple organ dysfunction
Prolonged mechanical ventilation
Immunocompromised contacts with active infections
Geographic exposure to endemic fungi

Oyster 1: The "Autoimmune Paradox"

Stopping biologics may lead to rebound inflammation that can be more dangerous than the original infection risk. Always weigh the consequences of disease flare against infection risk.

Specific Clinical Scenarios

Sepsis and Septic Shock

Management Approach:

Immediately discontinue all biologics
Obtain cultures before antibiotics when feasible
Consider broader antimicrobial coverage
Monitor for opportunistic infections
Consider immunoglobulin levels if prolonged course

Duration of Hold: Continue hold until:

Infection source controlled
Hemodynamically stable off vasopressors
Completing appropriate antimicrobial course
No evidence of secondary infections

Perioperative Management

Preoperative Planning:

Assess infection risk of procedure
Consider timing relative to last biologic dose
Evaluate underlying disease activity

High-Risk Procedures (hold biologics):

Abdominal surgery with bowel involvement
Joint replacement surgery
Any procedure with high infection rates

Low-Risk Procedures (may continue):

Minor dermatologic procedures
Diagnostic procedures
Ophthalmologic surgery

Hack 2: The "Surgical Window" Approach

For elective surgery, time procedures to occur at the end of the dosing interval when drug levels are lowest, typically 1-2 weeks after TNF inhibitor administration.

Monitoring and Surveillance Strategies

Infection Surveillance Protocol

Daily Assessment Should Include:

Temperature trends (noting blunted fever response)
White blood cell differential
Inflammatory markers (CRP, procalcitonin)
Organ function assessment
Wound/device inspection
Respiratory symptoms and imaging

Weekly Monitoring:

Blood cultures if fever or clinical deterioration
Fungal biomarkers (beta-D-glucan, galactomannan) if high risk
Viral PCR panels if indicated
Imaging studies for occult infections

Laboratory Considerations

Baseline Assessment:

Complete blood count with differential
Comprehensive metabolic panel
Liver function tests
Hepatitis B and C screening
Quantiferon-Gold or tuberculin skin test
Immunoglobulin levels

Ongoing Monitoring:

Serial inflammatory markers
Lymphocyte subsets if available
Immunoglobulin levels (especially with B-cell depleting agents)

Pearl 2: The "Immunologic Memory"

Patients with prior serious infections on biologics have significantly higher risk of recurrent infections. Maintain heightened surveillance for these individuals.

Antimicrobial Considerations

Empiric Therapy Modifications

Broader Coverage Considerations:

Extended-spectrum antibiotics for gram-negative coverage
Enhanced gram-positive coverage (including MRSA)
Antifungal coverage in high-risk patients
Consider atypical pathogen coverage

Prophylactic Strategies

High-Risk Patients May Benefit From:

Pneumocystis prophylaxis (especially with combination immunosuppression)
Antifungal prophylaxis in endemic areas
Viral prophylaxis (CMV, HSV) in select cases
Bacterial prophylaxis for specific procedures

Duration of Therapy

Consider prolonged courses for proven infections
Lower threshold for combination therapy
Monitor treatment response carefully
Consider infectious disease consultation

Hack 3: The "Double Coverage Rule"

In critically ill patients on biologics with suspected bacterial infections, consider dual antibiotic coverage until cultures and sensitivities are available, given the higher risk of treatment failure.

Special Populations and Considerations

Elderly Patients (>65 years)

Baseline higher infection risk
Slower drug clearance
More likely to have comorbidities
Consider more conservative approach

Patients with Multiple Comorbidities

Diabetes mellitus: Increased fungal infection risk
Chronic kidney disease: Altered drug clearance
Liver disease: Impaired synthetic function
COPD: Higher pneumonia risk

Combination Immunosuppression

Patients receiving multiple immunosuppressive agents require:

More aggressive infection surveillance
Broader antimicrobial coverage
Longer duration of biologic holds
Enhanced prophylaxis strategies

Emerging Considerations and Future Directions

COVID-19 and Biologics

The pandemic has highlighted important considerations:

TNF inhibitors may not increase COVID-19 severity
Some IL-6 inhibitors show promise in severe COVID-19
Vaccination responses may be blunted
Telemedicine monitoring strategies

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Future developments may include:

Pharmacogenomic testing for drug metabolism
Biomarkers for infection risk stratification
Point-of-care immune function testing
Precision dosing strategies

Pearl 3: The "Immune Reconstitution" Timeline

After stopping biologics, immune function recovery varies significantly by agent:

TNF inhibitors: 2-6 months
B-cell depleting agents: 6-12 months
T-cell modulators: 3-6 months

Clinical Pearls and Oysters Summary

Key Pearls

Stealth infections: Maintain high suspicion despite minimal inflammatory signs
Immunologic memory: Prior infections predict future risk
Immune reconstitution timeline: Recovery varies by agent and mechanism

Important Oysters

Autoimmune paradox: Disease flare can be more dangerous than infection risk
Laboratory limitations: Normal inflammatory markers don't rule out serious infection
Timing complexity: Half-life considerations affect decision-making windows

Essential Hacks

Half-life rule: >7 days = significant immunosuppression for 4-6 weeks
Surgical window: Time procedures to end of dosing interval
Double coverage rule: Consider dual antibiotics until cultures available

Evidence-Based Recommendations

Strong Recommendations (High-Quality Evidence)

Discontinue biologics in patients with sepsis or septic shock
Obtain infectious disease consultation for patients with opportunistic infections
Screen for latent tuberculosis before initiating biologics
Monitor for hepatitis B reactivation in at-risk patients

Conditional Recommendations (Moderate-Quality Evidence)

Consider continuing biologics in stable patients with controlled infections
Use broader antimicrobial coverage for empiric therapy
Implement enhanced surveillance protocols in ICU patients
Consider prophylactic antimicrobials in high-risk patients

Expert Opinion (Low-Quality Evidence)

Multidisciplinary team approach for complex cases
Individual risk-benefit assessment for each patient
Consider underlying disease severity in decision-making
Maintain open communication with outpatient specialists

Practical Implementation Strategies

ICU Protocol Development

Essential Components:

Risk stratification criteria
Decision-making algorithms
Monitoring protocols
Consultation triggers
Documentation requirements

Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Key Team Members:

Intensivist (primary decision-maker)
Infectious disease specialist
Rheumatologist/gastroenterologist/dermatologist
Clinical pharmacist
ICU nurses (monitoring and education)

Quality Improvement Initiatives

Potential Metrics:

Time to biologic hold in sepsis
Infection rates in biologic patients
Appropriate prophylaxis utilization
Consultation rates and timing
Patient outcomes and length of stay

Conclusion

Biologic therapies in the ICU present a complex clinical challenge that requires careful risk-benefit analysis, vigilant monitoring, and individualized decision-making. While these agents significantly increase infection risk and complicate critical care management, they can be safely managed with appropriate protocols and multidisciplinary collaboration.

The key to success lies in understanding the pharmacokinetics of specific agents, recognizing the altered presentation of infections in immunocompromised patients, and maintaining a high index of suspicion for opportunistic pathogens. As our experience with these agents grows and new biologics enter clinical practice, ongoing education and protocol refinement will be essential.

Ultimately, biologics are neither purely friend nor foe in the ICU setting—they are powerful tools that require expert management to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. The intensivist's role is to navigate this complex landscape with evidence-based decision-making, ensuring optimal outcomes for these challenging patients.

References

Singh JA, Cameron C, Noorbaloochi S, et al. Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(9990):258-265.
Yiu ZZ, Exton LS, Jabbar-Lopez Z, et al. Risk of serious infections in patients with psoriasis on biologic therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(8):1584-1591.
Lichtenstein GR, Feagan BG, Cohen RD, et al. Serious infection and mortality in patients with Crohn's disease: more than 5 years of follow-up in the TREAT registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(9):1409-1422.
Ramiro S, Sepriano A, Chatzidionysiou K, et al. Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):1101-1136.
Pappas DA, Hooper MM, Kremer JM, et al. Serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving rituximab: results from the rhumadata clinical database and registry. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(2):287-294.
Galloway JB, Hyrich KL, Mercer LK, et al. Anti-TNF therapy is associated with an increased risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis especially in the first 6 months of treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(9):1559-1566.
Curtis JR, Patkar N, Xie A, et al. Risk of serious bacterial infections among rheumatoid arthritis patients exposed to tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(4):1125-1133.
Grijalva CG, Chen L, Delzell E, et al. Initiation of tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists and the risk of hospitalization for infection in patients with autoimmune diseases. JAMA. 2011;306(21):2331-2339.
Strangfeld A, Eveslage M, Schneider M, et al. Treatment benefit or survival of the fittest: what drives the time-dependent decrease in serious infection rates under TNF inhibition and what does this imply for the individual patient? Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(11):1914-1920.
Listing J, Gerhold K, Zink A. The risk of infections associated with rheumatoid arthritis, with its comorbidity and treatment. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(1):53-61.
Winthrop KL, Yamanaka H, Valdez H, et al. Herpes zoster and tofacitinib therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(10):2675-2684.
Salmon-Ceron D, Tubach F, Lortholary O, et al. Drug-specific risk of non-tuberculosis opportunistic infections in patients receiving anti-TNF therapy reported to the 3-year prospective French RATIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(4):616-623.
Deepak P, Stobaugh DJ, Sherid M, et al. Neurological manifestations in TNF-α inhibitor therapy: an analysis of FDA adverse event reporting system. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19(8):1693-1701.
Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, et al. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295(19):2275-2285.
Leombruno JP, Einarson TR, Keystone EC. The safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(7):1136-1145.

Sunday, August 24, 2025