Dataset Information

Efficacy of a tight-control and treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis: results of the open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised TICOSPA trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the benefits of a tight-control/treat-to-target strategy (TC/T2T) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with those of usual care (UC).

Methods

Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomised, controlled, open, 1-year trial (NCT03043846). 18 centres were randomised (1:1). Patients met Axial Spondylo Arthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA, had an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) ≥2.1, received non-optimal treatment by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and were biologic-naive.

Interventions

(1) TC/T2T: visits every 4 weeks and prespecified strategy based on treatment intensification until achieving target (ie, ASDAS <2.1); (2) UC: visits every 12 weeks and treatment at the rheumatologist's discretion.

Main outcome

Percentage of patients with a ≥30% improvement on the ASAS-Health Index (ASAS-HI). Other efficacy outcomes and adverse events were recorded. A health economic evaluation was performed.

Statistical analysis

Two-level mixed models were used to estimate efficacy outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC/T2T versus UC.

Results

160 patients were included (80/group). Mean (SD) age was 37.9 (11.0) years and disease duration was 3.7 (6.2) years; 51.2% were men. ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7), and ASAS-HI was 8.6 (3.7). ASAS-HI improved by ≥30% in 47.3% of the TC/T2T arm and in 36.1% of those receiving UC (non-significant). All secondary efficacy outcomes were more frequent in the TC/T2T arm, although not all statistically significant. Safety was similar in both arms. From a societal perspective, TC/T2T resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY, and saved €472 compared with UC.

Conclusion

TC/T2T was not significantly superior to UC for the primary outcome, while many secondary efficacy outcomes favoured it, had a similar safety profile and was favourable from a societal health economic perspective.

Trial registration number

NCT03043846.

SUBMITTER: Molto A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8522451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended to those with inadequate response or contraindications to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In case of failure of the first bDMARD, a switch within the class or to other bDMARD is recommended. Despite these treatment options, there is no optimal treat-to-target (T2T) strategy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a T2T strategy in patients with axSpA, with secukinumab as a first-line bDMARD, compared with standard-of-care (SOC) treatment.Methods and analysesThis is a randomised, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre ongoing study in patients with axSpA who are naïve to bDMARD and who have had an inadequate response to NSAIDs. The study will include an 8-week screening period, a 36-week treatment period and a 20-week safety follow-up period. At baseline, patients will be randomised (1:1) to T2T or SOC group. In the T2T group, patients will be treated with secukinumab 150 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) weekly until week 4 and then at week 8. For non-responders (patients without Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] clinically important improvement; change from baseline ≥1.1) at week 12, dose will be escalated to 300 mg s.c. every 4 weeks until week 24. Non-responders at week 24 will be switched to adalimumab biosimilar 40 mg s.c. every 2 weeks until week 34. In the SOC group, patients will receive treatment at the discretion of the physician. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving an Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS40) response at week 24.Ethics and disseminationThe study is being conducted as per the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and after approval from independent ethics committees/institutional review boards. The first results are expected to be published in early 2022.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03906136.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:0.9% saline and Ringer's lactate are the two most common resuscitation crystalloid fluids. 0.9% saline may lead to hyperchloraemic metabolic acidosis and may be associated with impaired kidney function and death. Few large multicentre randomised trials have been conducted to evaluate the effect of these two fluids on clinically important outcomes. METHODS:FLUID is a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised crossover trial in which four hospitals will be randomised to normal saline or Ringer's lactate for 14 weeks, then crossover to the alternative fluid for the subsequent 14 weeks after 1 to 3?week transition. With waiver of informed consent, all adult and paediatric patients admitted to participating sites will be included in the FLUID trial except for neonates. Primary feasibility outcome is study fluid protocol adherence (target:?80%). Secondary feasibility outcomes include time to research ethics board (REB) approval and readiness to trial initiation (?3 months from REB submission and approval). Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes for the future large FLUID trial will be described. Protocol adherence will be collected by site at specified time points. All clinical data will be obtained at patient level through provincial health administrative data held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). Event rates for the primary and secondary outcomes will be described using frequencies and proportions with 95% CIs. Intracluster and interperiod correlation coefficients will be calculated from population-level data available at ICES. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol has been approved by the Ottawa Health Science Research Ethics Board. The FLUID pilot will determine feasibility, and ICES data across all potential sites in Ontario will allow calculation of sample size parameter estimates to inform the design and implementation of the large trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02721485; Pre-results.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:IntroductionLopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) has been proposed as repurposed drugs for pre-exposure and postexposure prophylaxis as well as therapy of COVID-19. Coronavirus postexposure prophylaxis (COPEP) trial aims at assessing their efficacy as postexposure ring-prophylaxis among adults exposed to SARS-CoV-2.Methods and analysisCOPEP is a two-arm open-label cluster-randomised trial conducted in three cantons of Switzerland. Asymptomatic contacts (≥16 years) of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 will be randomised (2:1) to either LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg two times per day) for 5 days, or a standard of care arm (no treatment). Asymptomatic individuals may be either SARS-CoV-2 positive or negative. Contacts living in the single household will form a cluster and will be randomised into the same arm. All participants will be followed-up for 21 days and undergo daily monitoring for COVID-19 symptoms. The primary endpoint is 21-day incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with ≥1 compatible symptom, analysed in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The secondary endpoints include the 21-day incidence of COVID-19 as well as SARS-CoV-2 infection in a modified ITT analysis, excluding participants who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from oropharyngeal swab and/or a positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology at baseline. Assuming a 21-day incidence for COVID-19 of 20% among contacts without postexposure chemoprophylaxis, to detect a relative risk reduction of 60% (ie, translating in an absolute reduction from 20% to 8%), with a power of 80%, an alpha of 5%. Accounting for design effect of cluster design of circa 1.1, we plan to enrol 200 participants to the LPV/r arm and 100 to the standard of care arm, 300 participants in total.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Commission Cantonale d'Ethique de la Recherche, Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz and Comitato Etico Cantonale (ref 2020-00864) and Swissmedic (2020DR3056). Results from this trial will be disseminated via journal articles and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov Registry (NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal Registry (SNCTP 000003732).Registered report identifierCCER 2020-0864.