Dataset Information

Using adalimumab serum concentration to choose a subsequent biological DMARD in rheumatoid arthritis patients failing adalimumab treatment (ADDORA-switch): study protocol for a fully blinded randomised superiority test-treatment trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A substantial proportion of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients discontinues treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) due to inefficacy or intolerance. After the failure of treatment with a TNFi, treatment can be switched to another TNFi or a bDMARD with a different mode of action (non-TNFi). Measurement of serum drug concentrations and/or anti-drug antibodies (therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)) may help to inform the choice for the next step. However, the clinical utility of TDM to guide switching has not been investigated in a randomised test-treatment study.

Methods

ADDORA-switch is a 24-week, multi-centre, triple-blinded, superiority test-treatment randomised controlled trial. A total of 84 RA patients failing adalimumab treatment (treatment failure defined as DAS28-CRP > 2.9) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a switching strategy to either TNFi or non-TNFi based on adalimumab serum trough level (intervention group) or random allocation (control group). The primary outcome is the between-group difference in mean time-weighted DAS28 over 24 weeks.

Discussion

The trial design differs in many aspects from previously published and ongoing TDM studies and is considered the first blinded test-treatment trial using TDM in RA. Several choices in the design of this trial are described, and overarching principles regarding test-treatment trials and clinical utility of TDM are discussed in further detail.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NL8210 . Registered on 3 December 2019 (CMO NL69841.091.19).

SUBMITTER: Wientjes MHM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8214249 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDirectly observed treatment (DOT) has been the standard of care for tuberculosis since the early 1990s, but it is inconvenient for patients and service providers. Video-observed therapy (VOT) has been conditionally recommended by WHO as an alternative to DOT. We tested whether levels of treatment observation were improved with VOT.MethodsWe did a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial in 22 clinics in England (UK). Eligible participants were patients aged at least 16 years with active pulmonary or non-pulmonary tuberculosis who were eligible for DOT according to local guidance. Exclusion criteria included patients who did not have access to charging a smartphone. We randomly assigned participants to either VOT (daily remote observation using a smartphone app) or DOT (observations done three to five times per week in the home, community, or clinic settings). Randomisation was done by the SealedEnvelope service using minimisation. DOT involved treatment observation by a health-care or lay worker, with any remaining daily doses self-administered. VOT was provided by a centralised service in London. Patients were trained to record and send videos of every dose ingested 7 days per week using a smartphone app. Trained treatment observers viewed these videos through a password-protected website. Patients were also encouraged to report adverse drug events on the videos. Smartphones and data plans were provided free of charge by study investigators. DOT or VOT observation records were completed by observers until treatment or study end. The primary outcome was completion of 80% or more scheduled treatment observations over the first 2 months following enrolment. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and restricted (including only patients completing at least 1 week of observation on allocated arm) analyses were done. Superiority was determined by a 15% difference in the proportion of patients with the primary outcome (60% vs 75%). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN26184967.FindingsBetween Sept 1, 2014, and Oct 1, 2016, we randomly assigned 226 patients; 112 to VOT and 114 to DOT. Overall, 131 (58%) patients had a history of homelessness, imprisonment, drug use, alcohol problems or mental health problems. In the ITT analysis, 78 (70%) of 112 patients on VOT achieved ≥80% scheduled observations successfully completed during the first 2 months compared with 35 (31%) of 114 on DOT (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5·48, 95% CI 3·10-9·68; p<0·0001). In the restricted analysis, 78 (77%) of 101 patients on VOT achieved the primary outcome compared with 35 (63%) of 56 on DOT (adjusted OR 2·52; 95% CI 1·17-5·54; p=0·017). Stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting were the most common adverse events reported (in 16 [14%] of 112 on VOT and nine [8%] of 114 on DOT).InterpretationVOT was a more effective approach to observation of tuberculosis treatment than DOT. VOT is likely to be preferable to DOT for many patients across a broad range of settings, providing a more acceptable, effective, and cheaper option for supervision of daily and multiple daily doses than DOT.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:ImportanceThe efficacy of adalimumab biosimilars is similar to that of brand-name adalimumab (Humira, hereinafter originator) in clinical trials. However, limited knowledge about real-world data exists for adalimumab biosimilars.ObjectiveTo assess the outcomes following a mandatory nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study assesses the outcomes following a switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar. Patients in the Biological Treatment in Danish Dermatology (DERMBIO) registry, a Danish nationwide registry of all patients treated with biologics (including biosimilars) for psoriasis since 2007, were assessed for eligibility. All patients who switched from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar between November 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort. All patients with a visit between May 1, 2017, and November 1, 2017, treated with adalimumab originator were included in the adalimumab originator cohort. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2020, to October 10, 2021.ExposureSwitch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 1-year drug retention in patients switching to adalimumab biosimilars compared with patients treated with adalimumab originator. Crude and adjusted retention rates for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort were compared with the adalimumab originator cohort with Cox proportional hazards regression using robust variance.ResultsA total of 348 patients were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [13.6] years; 251 [72.1%] male) and 378 patients in the adalimumab originator cohort (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [14.1] years; 272 [72.0%] male). The 1-year drug retention rates were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.0%-94.9%) for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort and 92.1% (95% CI, 89.4%-94.8%) for the adalimumab originator cohort. Similar hazard ratios were observed between the 2 cohorts. The crude hazard ratios were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61-1.70; P = .94) for all causes of drug discontinuation, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.39-1.73; P = .60) for insufficient effect, and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.52-3.77; P = .50) for adverse events for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort when compared with the adalimumab originator cohort.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study from Denmark, a nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars was not associated with drug retention.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor medications has revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis with achievement of treatment goals (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score 75, remission) that are not usually met with conventional systemics. Nevertheless, some patients continue to experience persistent disease activity or treatment failure over time. Strategies to optimize treatment outcomes include the use of concomitant methotrexate, which has demonstrated beneficial effects on pharmacokinetics and treatment efficacy in psoriasis and other inflammatory diseases.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to compare the combination treatment of adalimumab and methotrexate with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with psoriasis. The primary outcome is adalimumab drug survival at week 49. Other outcomes include improvement in disease severity and quality of life, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, anti-adalimumab antibodies and adalimumab serum concentrations will be measured and correlations between genotypes and clinical outcomes will be assessed. Patient recruitment started in March 2014. Up to now, 36 patients have been randomized. Many more patients have been (pre)screened. A total of 93 patients is desired to meet an adequate sample size. In our experience, the main limitation for recruitment is prior adalimumab therapy and intolerability or toxicity for methotrexate in the past.DiscussionOPTIMAP is the first RCT to examine combination therapy with adalimumab and methotrexate in a psoriasis population. With data derived from this study we expect to provide valuable clinical data on long-term treatment outcomes. These data will be supported by assessment of the impact of concomitant methotrexate on adalimumab pharmacokinetics. Furthermore, the influence of several single nucleotide polymorphisms on adalimumab response will be analyzed in order to support the development of a more personalized approach for this targeted therapy.Trial registrationNTR4499 . Registered on 7 April 2014.

Project description:BackgroundEvaluation of broad-spectrum micronutrient (vitamins and minerals) treatment for childhood ADHD has been limited to open-label studies that highlight beneficial effects across many aspects of psychological functioning.MethodThis is the first fully blinded randomized controlled trial of medication-free children (n = 93) with ADHD (7-12 years) assigned to either micronutrients (n = 47) or placebo (n = 46) in a 1:1 ratio, for 10 weeks. All children received standardized ADHD assessments. Data were collected from clinicians, parents, participants and teachers across a range of measures assessing ADHD symptoms, general functioning and impairment, mood, aggression and emotional regulation.ResultsIntent-to-treat analyses showed significant between-group differences favouring micronutrient treatment on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (ES = 0.46), with 47% of those on micronutrients identified as 'much' to 'very much' improved versus 28% on placebo. No group differences were identified on clinician, parent and teacher ratings of overall ADHD symptoms (ES ranged 0.03-0.17). However, according to clinicians, 32% of those on micronutrients versus 9% of those on placebo showed a clinically meaningful improvement on inattentive (OR = 4.9; 95% CI: 1.5-16.3), but no group differences on improvement in hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (OR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.4-2.5). Based on clinician, parent and teacher report, those on micronutrients showed greater improvements in emotional regulation, aggression and general functioning compared to placebo (ES ranged 0.35-0.66). There were two dropouts per group, no group differences in adverse events and no serious adverse events identified. Blinding was successful with guessing no better than chance.ConclusionsMicronutrients improved overall function, reduced impairment and improved inattention, emotional regulation and aggression, but not hyperactive/impulsive symptoms, in this sample of children with ADHD. Although direct benefit for core ADHD symptoms was modest, with mixed findings across raters, the low rate of adverse effects and the benefits reported across multiple areas of functioning indicate micronutrients may be a favourable option for some children, particularly those with both ADHD and emotional dysregulation. Trial registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000896774.

Project description:BackgroundMeta-analyses of nonrandomized studies have provided conflicting data on therapeutic hypothermia, or targeted temperature management (TTM), at 33°C in patients successfully resuscitated after nonshockable cardiac arrest. Nevertheless, the latest recommendations issued by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and by the European Resuscitation Council recommend therapeutic hypothermia. New data are available on the adverse effects of therapeutic hypothermia, notably infectious complications. The risk/benefit ratio of therapeutic hypothermia after nonshockable cardiac arrest is unclear.MethodsHYPERION is a multicenter (22 French ICUs) trial with blinded outcome assessment in which 584 patients with successfully resuscitated nonshockable cardiac arrest are allocated at random to either TTM between 32.5 and 33.5°C (therapeutic hypothermia) or TTM between 36.5 and 37.5°C (therapeutic normothermia) for 24 hours. Both groups are managed with therapeutic normothermia for the next 24 hours. TTM is achieved using locally available equipment. The primary outcome is day-90 neurological status assessed by the Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) Scale with dichotomization of the results (1 + 2 versus 3 + 4 + 5). The primary outcome is assessed by a blinded psychologist during a semi-structured telephone interview of the patient or next of kin. Secondary outcomes are day-90 mortality, hospital mortality, severe adverse events, infections, and neurocognitive performance. The planned sample size of 584 patients will enable us to detect a 9% absolute difference in day-90 neurological status with 80% power, assuming a 14% event rate in the control group and a two-sided Type 1 error rate of 4.9%. Two interim analyses will be performed, after inclusion of 200 and 400 patients, respectively.DiscussionThe HYPERION trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, superiority trial that may provide an answer to an issue of everyday relevance, namely, whether TTM is beneficial in comatose patients resuscitated after nonshockable cardiac arrest. Furthermore, it will provide new data on the tolerance and adverse events (especially infectious complications) of TTM at 32.5-33.5°C.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01994772 .