Dataset Information

Design of an international investigator-initiated study on MOdern Treatment of Inhibitor-positiVe pATiEnts with haemophilia A (MOTIVATE).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inhibitor development is the most serious treatment-related complication of replacement coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) therapy for patients with haemophilia A. Immune tolerance induction (ITI), which involves intensive and prolonged treatment with plasma-derived or recombinant FVIII, is the only clinically proven strategy for eradication of inhibitors. The bispecific antibody emicizumab is approved for use in patients with and without inhibitors to prevent bleeding but does not eliminate inhibitors. MOTIVATE (www.motivate-study.com) aims to capture different approaches to the treatment and management of patients with haemophilia A and inhibitors, document current ITI approaches from real-world clinical experience, and evaluate the efficacy and safety of ITI, emicizumab prophylaxis and ITI with emicizumab prophylaxis.

Methods

The investigator-initiated MOTIVATE study [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04023019; EudraCT 2019-003427-38] will investigate in real-life clinical practice the management of patients with haemophilia A of any severity who have developed inhibitors to FVIII. All treatment is at the investigator's discretion. The following treatment approaches will be evaluated: Group 1 - ITI with Nuwiq^®, octanate^® or wilate^® and aPCC/rFVIIa if needed to treat bleeding episodes (BEs) or during surgery or for prophylaxis; Group 2 - ITI with Nuwiq^®, octanate^® or wilate^® and emicizumab prophylaxis and aPCC/rFVIIa if needed to treat BEs or during surgery; Group 3 - routine prophylaxis with emicizumab, aPCC or rFVIIa without ITI and aPCC/rFVIIa if needed to treat BEs or during surgery. Patients will not be randomised to a treatment group and may change groups during the study.

Conclusions

It is planned to enrol 120 patients who will be followed for up to 5 years. Optional sub-studies will explore factors that may influence ITI results as well as the impact of different treatment approaches on important aspects of patient health, including joint and bone health and the risk of thrombotic events.

SUBMITTER: Escuriola Ettingshausen C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8474305 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial's impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort.MethodsThe research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov . Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication's target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials.ResultsWe included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36).ConclusionsThe results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.

Project description:Objective:In children many antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are prescribed off-label due to a lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a multicenter RCT in the Netherlands to compare levetiracetam and valproic acid as monotherapy in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. After 2 years, we had to stop this investigator-initiated trial prematurely because the inclusion rate was too low. We analyzed the reasons for this failure, assessed the various issues involved in performing RCTs in children, and now give recommendations for future studies. Methods:A questionnaire was completed by all investigators involved in the study. It included questions about the motivation to participate and the perceived reasons for recruitment failure. We also studied literature about financial, logistic, legal, and ethical aspects of RCTs in children. Results:Main reasons for recruitment failure were overestimation of the number of eligible AED-naive children referred by general pediatricians; personal preferences of investigators for specific antiepileptic drugs; and the extensive administrative load due to extra regulations and guidelines for children. Fundraising for investigator-initiated trials is difficult and the majority of RCTs concerning AEDs are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Involving children requires balancing between protection and participation; the randomization procedure and obtaining informed consent are complex for both children and parents. Significance:Performing RCTs with AEDs in children is important but complicated by logistic, regulatory, legal, and ethical restrictions. Based on our recent experience, our advice to colleagues who are planning a similar trial would be to perform a feasibility pilot study; to set up intensive collaboration with referring pediatricians; to arrange support of a clinical trials unit and a local research nurse during the complete trial period; and to incorporate the possibility of extending the recruitment period. Major investments, both financially from governmental organizations and in time, are imperative for independent RCTs in children.