Dataset Information

Efficacy of anti-TNF dosing interval lengthening in adolescents and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease in sustained remission (FREE-study): protocol for a partially randomised patient preference trial

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy has greatly improved treatment outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but long-term use is associated with cutaneous reactions, susceptibility to infections and frequent injections or hospital visits. Several non-controlled studies have demonstrated that dose reduction is feasible for a subset of patients, provided that early detection of a disease flare is possible. Here, we aim to compare the effectiveness of interval lengthening with standard dosing in maintaining remission in young patients with IBD.

Methods and analysis

In this international, prospective, non-inferiority, partially randomised patient preference trial, we aim to recruit 148 patients aged 12–25 years with luminal Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis in sustained remission (ie, three consecutive in-range faecal calprotectin (FC) results or recently confirmed endoscopic remission). In the interventional arm, the dosing interval will be lengthened from 8 to 12 weeks for infliximab users and from 2 to 3 weeks for adalimumab users. In the control group, standard dosing will be continued. Rapid tests will be performed for FC every 4 weeks and for anti-TNF trough levels every 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of out-of-range FC results at 48-week follow-up. Secondary endpoints include time to get out-of-range FC results, cumulative incidence of adverse effects, proportion of patients progressing to loss of response and identification of predictors of successful interval lengthening.

Ethics and dissemination

The protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the University Medical Centre Groningen and is pending at the other participating centres. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.

Trial registration number

EudraCT number: 2020-001811-26; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04646187. Protocol version 4, date 17 September 2021.

SUBMITTER: Bouhuys M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572401 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAdalimumab is effective for maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) at a dose of 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks. However, adalimumab is associated with (long-term) adverse events and is costly. The aim of this study is to demonstrate non-inferiority and cost-effectiveness of disease activity guided adalimumab interval lengthening compared to standard dosing of every other week (EOW).Methods and analysisThe Lengthening Adalimumab Dosing Interval (LADI) study is a pragmatic, multicentre, open label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Non-inferiority is reached if the difference in cumulative incidence of persistent (>8 weeks) flares does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%. 174 CD patients on adalimumab maintenance therapy in long-term (>9 months) clinical and biochemical remission will be included (C-reactive protein (CRP) <10 mg/L, faecal calprotectin (FC) <150 µg/g, Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) <5). Patients will be randomised 2:1 into the intervention (adalimumab interval lengthening) or control group (adalimumab EOW). The intervention group will lengthen the adalimumab administration interval to every 3 weeks, and after 24 weeks to every 4 weeks. Clinical and biochemical disease activity will be monitored every 12 weeks by physician global assessment, HBI, CRP and FC. In case of disease flare, dosing will be increased. A flare is defined as two of three of the following criteria; FC>250 µg/g, CRP≥10 mg/l, HBI≥5. Secondary outcomes include cumulative incidence of transient flares, adverse events, predictors for successful dose reduction and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (registration number NL58948.091.16). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Trial registration numbersEudraCT registry (2016-003321-42); Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT03172377); Dutch trial registry (NTRID6417).

Project description:BackgroundAdolescent and young adults with cancer are at increased risk of psychosocial difficulties relative to their healthy peers. Current models of inpatient face-to-face psychosocial care might limit the capacity for clinicians to provide timely and personalized assessment and intervention for this group. Telehealth offers a promising alternative toward increasing access to the provision of evidence-based psychosocial assessment and treatment for adolescent and young adults with cancer.ObjectiveThis pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability for both patients and clinicians of providing a psychosocial assessment via telehealth to adolescents and young adults currently receiving treatment for cancer, relative to face-to-face delivery.MethodsWe included patients who were aged 15-25 years, currently receiving treatment, could speak English well, and medically stable. Patients were recruited from oncology clinics or wards from 5 hospitals located across Sydney and Canberra, Australia, and allocated them to receive psychosocial assessment (Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Psychosocial Assessment Measure) with a clinical psychologist or social worker through face-to-face or telehealth modalities using a partially randomized patient preference model. Patients completed a pre- and postassessment questionnaire comprising validated and purposely designed feasibility and acceptability indices, including the impact of technical difficulties, if patients had their own devices; number of patients who were content with their group allocation; self-reported preference of modality; Treatment Credibility and Expectations Questionnaire; and Working Alliance Inventory. Clinicians also completed a postassessment questionnaire rating their impressions of the acceptability and feasibility of intervention delivery by each modality.ResultsOf 29 patients approached, 23 consented to participate (response rate: 79%). Participants were partially randomized to either telehealth (8/23, 35%; mean age 16.50 years, range 15-23 years; females: 4/8, 50%) or face-to-face (11/23, 62%; mean age 17 years, range 15-22 years; females: 8/11, 72%) conditions. Four participants withdrew consent because of logistical or medical complications (attrition rate: 17.4%). Most participants (6/8, 75%) in the telehealth group used their computer or iPad (2 were provided with an iPad), with minor technical difficulties occurring in 3 of 8 (37.5%) assessments. Participants in both groups rated high working alliance (Working Alliance Inventory; median patient response in the telehealth group, 74, range 59-84 and face-to-face group, 63, range 51-84) and reported positive beliefs regarding the credibility and expectations of their treatment group. Postassessment preferences between face-to-face or telehealth modalities varied. Most patients in the telehealth group (5/8, 63%) reported no preference, whereas 6 of 11 (55%) in the face-to-face group reported a preference for the face-to-face modality.ConclusionsTelehealth is acceptable as patient comfort was comparable across modalities, with no significant technological barriers experienced. However, patients varied in their preferred interview modality, highlighting the need to tailor the treatment to patient preference and circumstances.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001142628; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366609 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/721889HpE).

Project description:BackgroundA conflicting body of research suggests that additional investigation is needed to understand how globally watched television shows featuring social and mental health issues, such as 13 Reasons Why, might affect adolescents' mental wellness.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate adolescents' viewership of the third season of the Netflix drama 13 Reasons Why (13RW-3) and their engagement with show-related content, paying special attention to mental health outcomes and conversational partners.MethodsA panel-based research platform operated by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago recruited 157 adolescents aged 13 to 17 years from its nationally representative pool of participants. Participants answered questions about how they discussed and learned about social and mental health issues portrayed in 13RW-3 (eg, masculine role pressure and sexual assault) and questions about mental wellness (eg, mental health self-efficacy and depression). After the participants completed the survey (T1), they were directed to either watch 13RW-3 as it aired for the first time (intervention group) or not watch 13RW-3 (control group). Approximately one month later (T2), all the participants were asked to complete the postsurvey. Additional survey questions about conversational partners, information seeking because of watching the show, and use of show-related content were included in the intervention postsurvey.ResultsOur sample (N=157) was 52.2% (n=82) female and 54.8% (n=86) White, with a mean age of 14.99 (SD 1.4) years. At T2, viewers of 13RW-3 spoke about suicide significantly more frequently than nonviewers (P=.007). From T1 to T2, viewers increasingly discussed issues explored by 13RW-3 (P=.002), especially suicide, mental health, and bullying. Adolescent viewers were most likely to speak with friends, and parents were the second most commonly named. Two variables emerged as consistent moderators of conversational choices-having depressive symptoms and being impacted by sexual assault. There was no association between conversational frequency and information seeking around social and mental health issues, and neither mental health self-efficacy scores nor masculine role pressure scores significantly differed between viewers and nonviewers at T2.ConclusionsViewing 13RW-3, a globally watched television show featuring social and mental health issues, led to adolescent conversations and information searches about topics explored by the show. Depressive symptoms and the impact of sexual assault moderated several relationships, guiding participants toward engaging with certain issues and seeking out specific conversational partners. As 13RW-3's stories drove conversations-and story-driven conversations can raise awareness, reduce stigma, shift attitudes, normalize certain behaviors, and strengthen supportive relationships-potential wellness implications for television shows featuring social and mental health issues are considerable.