Anti-tumour necrosis factor discontinuation in inflammatory bowel disease patients in remission: study protocol of a prospective, multicentre, randomized clinical trial

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease who achieve remission with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs may have treatment withdrawn due to safety concerns and cost considerations, but there is a lack of prospective, controlled data investigating this strategy. The primary study aim is to compare the rates of clinical remission at 1?year in patients who discontinue anti-TNF treatment versus those who continue treatment. Methods: This is an ongoing, prospective, double-blind, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with Crohn?s disease or ulcerative colitis who have achieved clinical remission for ?6?months with an anti-TNF treatment and an immunosuppressant. Patients are being randomized 1:1 to discontinue anti-TNF therapy or continue therapy. Randomization stratifies patients by the type of inflammatory bowel disease and drug (infliximab versus adalimumab) at study inclusion. The primary endpoint of the study is sustained clinical remission at 1?year. Other endpoints include endoscopic and radiological activity, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, work productivity), safety and predictive factors for relapse. The required sample size is 194 patients. In addition to the main analysis (discontinuation versus continuation), subanalyses will include stratification by type of inflammatory bowel disease, phenotype and previous treatment. Biological samples will be obtained to identify factors predictive of relapse after treatment withdrawal. Results: Enrolment began in 2016, and the study is expected to end in 2020. Conclusions: This study will contribute prospective, controlled data on outcomes and predictors of relapse in patients with inflammatory bowel disease after withdrawal of anti-TNF agents following achievement of clinical remission. Clinical trial reference number: EudraCT 2015-001410-1

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system