What web-based intervention for chronic cancer-related fatigue works best for whom?:Explorative moderation analyses of a randomized controlled trial

Purpose Approximately 25% of cancer patients suffer from chronic cancer-related fatigue (CCRF), which is a complex, multifactorial condition. While there are evidence-based interventions, it remains unclear what treatment works best for the individual patient. This study explored whether baseline characteristics moderated the effect of web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (eMBCT) versus ambulant activity feedback (AAF) and a psycho-education control group (PE) on fatigue in patients suffering from CCRF. Methods In a randomized controlled trial, participant suffering from CCRF participated in either eMBCT, AAF, or PE. Complete data of the treatment-adherent sample (≥ 6 sessions) was used to explore whether sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics at baseline moderated the intervention effect on fatigue severity at 6 months. Results A trend showed that baseline fatigue severity and fatigue catastrophizing moderated the intervention effect. That is, at low levels of fatigue severity and catastrophizing, patients benefited more from AAF than from eMBCT and at high levels of fatigue severity and catastrophizing, patients benefited more from eMBCT than from PE. Conclusions This study found some preliminary evidence on what treatment works best for the individual suffering from CCRF. These findings emphasize the potential gain in effectiveness of personalizing treatment. An alternative approach that might help us further in answering the question “what treatment works best for whom?” is discussed

Superior effectiveness of tofacitinib compared to vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced ulcerative colitis patients: a nationwide Dutch registry study

Background & AimsClinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry.MethodsPatients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 μg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias.ResultsOverall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81–10.50; P P P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96–5.45; P P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06–3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events.ConclusionsTofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Superior effectiveness of tofacitinib compared to vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced ulcerative colitis patients: a nationwide Dutch registry study

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase in-hibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. METHODS: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index 52), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein 55 mg/L or fecal calprotectin 5250 mg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 83 vedolizumab-and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score -weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81-10.50; P Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Predictors for earlier return to work of cancer patients

Contains fulltext : 198344.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

What web-based intervention for chronic cancer-related fatigue works best for whom?: Explorative moderation analyses of a randomized controlled trial

Purpose Approximately 25% of cancer patients suffer from chronic cancer-related fatigue (CCRF), which is a complex, multifactorial condition. While there are evidence-based interventions, it remains unclear what treatment works best for the individual patient. This study explored whether baseline characteristics moderated the effect of web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (eMBCT) versus ambulant activity feedback (AAF) and a psycho-education control group (PE) on fatigue in patients suffering from CCRF. Methods In a randomized controlled trial, participant suffering from CCRF participated in either eMBCT, AAF, or PE. Complete data of the treatment-adherent sample (≥ 6 sessions) was used to explore whether sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics at baseline moderated the intervention effect on fatigue severity at 6 months. Results A trend showed that baseline fatigue severity and fatigue catastrophizing moderated the intervention effect. That is, at low levels of fatigue severity and catastrophizing, patients benefited more from AAF than from eMBCT and at high levels of fatigue severity and catastrophizing, patients benefited more from eMBCT than from PE. Conclusions This study found some preliminary evidence on what treatment works best for the individual suffering from CCRF. These findings emphasize the potential gain in effectiveness of personalizing treatment. An alternative approach that might help us further in answering the question “what treatment works best for whom?” is discussed

MSA retain winning regu for Manila

Purpose: Increasing physical activity level is a generally effective intervention goal for patients who suffer from chronic cancer-related fatigue (CCRF). However, patients are unlikely to benefit equally from these interventions, as their behavioral starting points might vary substantially. Therefore, we explored patterns of physical behavior of participants who suffer from CCRF. Methods: Baseline data of a randomized controlled trial were used for a latent profile analysis on nine accelerometer-derived physical behavior measures, describing levels and patterns of physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary behavior. The relation between participant characteristics and the latent profiles was analyzed. Results: Accelerometer data of 172 participants from the Netherlands was analyzed. Three latent profiles were distinguished that differed most on physical activity level and total time spent in MVPA. Eighty-eight percent of all participants were assigned to a profile with a probability higher than 8. Age and perceiving limitations by comorbid conditions and pain were significant covariates of profile membership. Conclusions: We distinguished three physical behavior profiles. The differences between the patterns indicate that the heterogeneity of this sample requires patients to have substantially different treatment goals. Further research should test the applicability of these profiles in clinical practice