Dataset Information

A clinical decision support tool may help to optimise vedolizumab therapy in Crohn's disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A clinical decision support tool (CDST) has been validated for predicting treatment effectiveness of vedolizumab (VDZ) in Crohn's disease.

Aim

To assess the utility of this CDST for predicting exposure-efficacy and disease outcomes.

Methods

Using data from three independent datasets (GEMINI, GETAID and VICTORY), we assessed clinical remission rates and measured VDZ exposure, rapidity of onset of action, response to dose optimisation and progression to surgery by CDST-defined response groups (low, intermediate and high).

Results

A linear relationship existed between CDST-defined groups, measured VDZ exposure, rapidity of onset of action and efficacy in GEMINI through week 52 (P < 0.001 at all time points across three CDST-defined groups). In GETAID, CDST predicted differences in clinical remission at week 14 (AUC = 0.68) and rapidity of onset of action (P = 0.04) between probability groups. The high-probability patients did not benefit from shortening of infusion intervals, and differences in onset of action between the high-intermediate and low-probability groups within GETAID were no longer significant when including low-probability patients who received a week 10 infusion. CDST predicted a twofold increase in surgery risk over 12 months of VDZ therapy among low- to intermediate-probability vs high-probability patients (adjusted HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33-3.21).

Conclusions

We further extended the clinical utility of a previously validated VDZ CDST, which accurately predicts at baseline exposure-efficacy relationships and rapidity of onset of action and could be used to help identify patients who would most benefit from interval shortening and those most likely to require surgery while on active therapy.

SUBMITTER: Dulai PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7028036 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDirect comparisons are lacking between vedolizumab and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy in Crohn's disease (CD).AimTo compare safety and effectiveness of vedolizumab and TNF-antagonist therapy in adult CD patients.MethodsRetrospective observational cohort (May 2014-December 2017) propensity score-weighted comparison of vedolizumab vs TNF-antagonist therapy (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab) in CD. Propensity scores were weighted for age, prior treatments, disease complications, extent and severity, steroid dependence, and concomitant immunosuppressive drug use. The primary outcome was comparative risk for infections or non-infectious serious adverse events (requiring antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, hospitalisation, or treatment discontinuation, or resulting in death). Secondary comparative effectiveness outcomes were clinical remission (resolution of CD-related symptoms), steroid-free clinical remission and endoscopic remission (absence of ulcers/erosions).ResultsWe included 1266 patients (n = 659 vedolizumab). Rates of non-infectious serious adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 0.072, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.012-0.242), but not serious infections (OR 1.183, 95% CI 0.786-1.795), were significantly lower with vedolizumab vs TNF-antagonist therapy. Safety comparisons for non-infectious serious adverse events remained significant after adjusting for differences in duration of exposure. No significant difference was observed between vedolizumab and TNF-antagonist therapy for clinical remission (hazard ratio [HR] 0.932, 95% CI 0.707-1.228), steroid-free clinical remission (HR 1.250, 95% CI 0.677-2.310) or endoscopic remission (HR 0.827, 95% CI 0.595-1.151). TNF-antagonist therapy was associated with higher treatment persistence compared with vedolizumab.ConclusionsThere was a lower risk of non-infectious serious adverse events, but not serious infections, with vedolizumab vs TNF-antagonist therapy, with no significant difference for achieving disease remission.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker, there are no low-cost, easily-scaled interventions to address this problem.Aim of the studyTo develop and pilot-test the Family Support Tool, an interactive, web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs.Material and methodsWe used a mixed methods, user-centered process to create the Family Support Tool, including: 1) creation of a preliminary design by an expert panel; 2) engagement of a key stakeholder panel to iteratively refine the preliminary design; 3) user testing of a low-fidelity prototype of the tool by 6 former ICU surrogates; 4) creation of a web-based prototype; and 5) user testing of the web-based prototype with 14 surrogates and ICU physicians, including semi-structured interviews and quantitative measurement of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness.ResultsThe initial design contained a collection of videos and exercises designed to help individuals understand the surrogate's role and think through the patient's values and preferences. Based on family stakeholders' feedback about the emotional overwhelm they experience early in an ICU stay, we redesigned the tool to be viewed in sections, with the first section focused on decreasing surrogates' emotional distress, and later sections focused on helping surrogates prepare for family meetings. Surrogates actively making decisions in the ICU judged the final tool to be highly usable (mean summary score 83.5, correlating to 95th percentile when normalized to devices of its type), acceptable (mean 4.2 +/- 0.5 out of 5), and effective (mean 4.3 +/- 0.6 out of 5). All surrogates reported the tool helped them consider goals of care and all indicated they would recommend the tool to a friend.ConclusionsWe successfully developed a web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs that has high potential for scalability. Surrogates judged the tool to be usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding to test the tool in a pilot randomized clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporosis affects over 200 million people worldwide, and represents a significant cost burden. Although guidelines are available for best practice in osteoporosis, evidence indicates that patients are not receiving appropriate diagnostic testing or treatment according to guidelines. The use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may be one solution because they can facilitate knowledge translation by providing high-quality evidence at the point of care. Findings from a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions and consultation with clinical and human factors engineering experts were used to develop a conceptual model of an osteoporosis tool. We conducted a qualitative study of focus groups to better understand physicians' perceptions of CDSSs and to transform the conceptual osteoporosis tool into a functional prototype that can support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management at the point of care.MethodsThe conceptual design of the osteoporosis tool was tested in 4 progressive focus groups with family physicians and general internists. An iterative strategy was used to qualitatively explore the experiences of physicians with CDSSs; and to find out what features, functions, and evidence should be included in a working prototype. Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide using an iterative process where results of the first focus group informed changes to the questions for subsequent focus groups and to the conceptual tool design. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.ResultsOf the 3 broad categories of themes that were identified, major barriers related to the accuracy and feasibility of extracting bone mineral density test results and medications from the risk assessment questionnaire; using an electronic input device such as a Tablet PC in the waiting room; and the importance of including well-balanced information in the patient education component of the osteoporosis tool. Suggestions for modifying the tool included the addition of a percentile graph showing patients' 10-year risk for osteoporosis or fractures, and ensuring that the tool takes no more than 5 minutes to complete.ConclusionsFocus group data revealed the facilitators and barriers to using the osteoporosis tool at the point of care so that it can be optimized to aid physicians in their clinical decision making.