Effectiveness of nurse delivered endoscopy: findings from randomised multi-institution nurse endoscopy trial (MINuET)

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of doctors and nurses in undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Design Pragmatic trial with Zelen's randomisation before consent to minimise distortion of existing practice. Setting 23 hospitals in the United Kingdom. In six hospitals, nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 centres. Participants 67 doctors and 30 nurses. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, we randomised 4128 (83%) and recruited 1888 (38%) from July 2002 to June 2003. Interventions Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, undertaken with or without sedation, with the standard preparation, techniques, and protocols of participating hospitals. After referral for either procedure, patients were randomised between doctors and nurses. Main outcome measures Gastrointestinal symptom rating questionnaire (primary outcome), gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire and state-trait anxiety inventory (all analysed by intention to treat); immediate and delayed complications; quality of examination and corresponding report; patients' preferences for operator; and new diagnoses at one year (all analysed according to who carried out the procedure). Results There was no significant difference between groups in outcome at one day, one month, or one year after endoscopy, except that patients were more satisfied with nurses after one day. Nurses were also more thorough than doctors in examining the stomach and oesophagus. While quality of life scores were slightly better in patients the doctor group, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions Diagnostic endoscopy can be undertaken safely and effectively by nurses. Trial registration International standard RCT 8276570

Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS): successful development and testing

Objectives: To develop a tool for the accurate reporting and aggregation of findings from each of the multiple methods used in a complex evaluation in an unbiased way. Study Design and Setting: We developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) within a gastroenterology study [Evaluating New Innovations in (the delivery and organisation of) Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services by the NHS Modernisation Agency (ENIGMA)]. We subsequently tested it on a different gastroenterology trial [Multi-Institutional Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)]. We created three layers to define the effects, methods, and findings from ENIGMA. We assigned numbers to each effect in layer 1 and letters to each method in layer 2. We used an alphanumeric code based on layers 1 and 2 to every finding in layer 3 to link the aims, methods, and findings. We illustrated analogous findings by assigning more than one alphanumeric code to a finding. We also showed that more than one effect or method could report the same finding. We presented contradictory findings by listing them in adjacent rows of the MATRICS. Results: MATRICS was useful for the effective synthesis and presentation of findings of the multiple methods from ENIGMA. We subsequently successfully tested it by applying it to the MINuET trial. Conclusion: MATRICS is effective for synthesizing the findings of complex, multiple-method studies.6 page(s

Thiopurine monotherapy is effective in ulcerative colitis but significantly less so in Crohn’s disease: long-term outcomes for 11 928 patients in the UK inflammatory bowel disease bioresource

Objective: Thiopurines are widely used as maintenance therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but the evidence base for their use is sparse and their role increasingly questioned. Using the largest series reported to date, we assessed the long-term effectiveness of thiopurines in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), including their impact on need for surgery. Design: Outcomes were assessed in 11 928 patients (4968 UC, 6960 CD) in the UK IBD BioResource initiated on thiopurine monotherapy with the intention of maintaining medically induced remission. Effectiveness was assessed retrospectively using patient-level data and a definition that required avoidance of escalation to biological therapy or surgery while on thiopurines. Analyses included overall effectiveness, time-to-event analysis for treatment escalation and comparison of surgery rates in patients tolerant or intolerant of thiopurines. Results: Using 68 132 patient-years of exposure, thiopurine monotherapy appeared effective for the duration of treatment in 2617/4968 (52.7%) patients with UC compared with 2378/6960 (34.2%) patients with CD (p<0.0001). This difference was corroborated in a multivariable analysis: after adjusting for variables including treatment era, thiopurine monotherapy was less effective in CD than UC (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.51, p<0.0001). Thiopurine intolerance was associated with increased risk of surgery in UC (HR 2.44, p<0.0001); with a more modest impact on need for surgery in CD (HR=1.23, p=0.0015). Conclusion: Thiopurine monotherapy is an effective long-term treatment for UC but significantly less effective in CD

Withdrawal of infliximab or concomitant immunosuppressant therapy in patients with Crohn's disease on combination therapy (SPARE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceBackground: The combination of infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy is a standard management strategy for patients with Crohn's disease. Concerns regarding the implications of long-term combination therapy provided the rationale for a formal clinical trial of treatment de-escalation. Our aim was to compare the relapse rate and the time spent in remission over 2 years between patients continuing combination therapy and those stopping infliximab or immunosuppressant therapy.Methods: This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was performed in 64 hospitals in seven countries in Europe and Australia. Adult patients with Crohn's disease in steroid-free clinical remission for more than 6 months, on combination therapy of infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy for at least 8 months were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either continue combination therapy (combination group), discontinue infliximab (infliximab withdrawal group), or discontinue immunosuppressant therapy (immunosuppressant withdrawal group). Randomisation was stratified according to disease duration before start of first anti-TNF treatment (≤2 or >2 years), failure of immunosuppressant therapy before start of infliximab, and presence of ulcers at baseline endoscopy. The patient number and group of each stratum were assigned by a central online randomisation website. Treatment was optimised or resumed in case of relapse in all groups. Participants, those assessing outcomes, and those analysing the data were not masked to group assignment. The coprimary endpoints were the relapse rate (superiority analysis) and time in remission over 2 years (non-inferiority analysis, non-inferiority margin 35 days). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02177071, and with EU Clinical Trials Register, EUDRACT 2014-002311-41. The trial was completed in April, 2021.Findings: Between Nov 2, 2015, and April 24, 2019, 254 patients were screened. Of these, 211 were randomised and 207 were included in the final analysis (n=67 in the combination group, n=71 in the infliximab withdrawal group, and n=69 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). 39 patients had a relapse (eight [12%] of 67 in the combination group, 25 [35%] of 71 in the infliximab withdrawal group, six [9%] of 69 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). 2-year relapse rates were 14% (95% CI 4-23) in the combination group, 36% (24-47) in the infliximab withdrawal group, and 10% (2-18) in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group (hazard ratio [HR] 3·45 [95% CI 1·56-7·69], p=0·003, for infliximab withdrawal vs combination, and 4·76 [1·92-11·11], p=0·0004, for infliximab withdrawal vs immunosuppressant withdrawal). Of 28 patients who had a relapse and were retreated or optimised according to protocol, remission was achieved in 25 patients (one of two in the combination group, 22 of 23 in the infliximab withdrawal group, and two of three in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). The mean time spent in remission over 2 years was 698 days (95% CI 668-727) in the combination group, 684 days (651-717) in the infliximab withdrawal group, and 706 days (682-730) in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group. The difference in restricted mean survival time in remission was -14 days (95% CI -56 to 27) between the infliximab withdrawal group and the combination group and -22 days (-62 to 16) between the infliximab withdrawal group and the immunosuppressant withdrawal group. The 95% CIs contained the non-inferiority threshold (-35 days). We recorded 31 serious adverse events, in 20 patients, with no difference in frequency between groups. The most frequent serious adverse events were infections (four in the combination group, two in the infliximab withdrawal group, and one in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group) and Crohn's disease exacerbation (three in the combination group, four in the infliximab withdrawal group, and one in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). No death nor malignancy was recorded.Interpretation: In patients with Crohn's disease in sustained steroid-free remission under combination therapy with infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy, withdrawal of infliximab should only be considered after careful assessment of risks and benefits for each patient, whereas withdrawal of immunosuppressant therapy could generally represent a preferable strategy when considering treatment de-escalation

Withdrawal of infliximab or concomitant immunosuppressant therapy in patients with Crohn's disease on combination therapy (SPARE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceBackground: The combination of infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy is a standard management strategy for patients with Crohn's disease. Concerns regarding the implications of long-term combination therapy provided the rationale for a formal clinical trial of treatment de-escalation. Our aim was to compare the relapse rate and the time spent in remission over 2 years between patients continuing combination therapy and those stopping infliximab or immunosuppressant therapy.Methods: This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was performed in 64 hospitals in seven countries in Europe and Australia. Adult patients with Crohn's disease in steroid-free clinical remission for more than 6 months, on combination therapy of infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy for at least 8 months were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either continue combination therapy (combination group), discontinue infliximab (infliximab withdrawal group), or discontinue immunosuppressant therapy (immunosuppressant withdrawal group). Randomisation was stratified according to disease duration before start of first anti-TNF treatment (≤2 or >2 years), failure of immunosuppressant therapy before start of infliximab, and presence of ulcers at baseline endoscopy. The patient number and group of each stratum were assigned by a central online randomisation website. Treatment was optimised or resumed in case of relapse in all groups. Participants, those assessing outcomes, and those analysing the data were not masked to group assignment. The coprimary endpoints were the relapse rate (superiority analysis) and time in remission over 2 years (non-inferiority analysis, non-inferiority margin 35 days). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02177071, and with EU Clinical Trials Register, EUDRACT 2014-002311-41. The trial was completed in April, 2021.Findings: Between Nov 2, 2015, and April 24, 2019, 254 patients were screened. Of these, 211 were randomised and 207 were included in the final analysis (n=67 in the combination group, n=71 in the infliximab withdrawal group, and n=69 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). 39 patients had a relapse (eight [12%] of 67 in the combination group, 25 [35%] of 71 in the infliximab withdrawal group, six [9%] of 69 in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). 2-year relapse rates were 14% (95% CI 4-23) in the combination group, 36% (24-47) in the infliximab withdrawal group, and 10% (2-18) in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group (hazard ratio [HR] 3·45 [95% CI 1·56-7·69], p=0·003, for infliximab withdrawal vs combination, and 4·76 [1·92-11·11], p=0·0004, for infliximab withdrawal vs immunosuppressant withdrawal). Of 28 patients who had a relapse and were retreated or optimised according to protocol, remission was achieved in 25 patients (one of two in the combination group, 22 of 23 in the infliximab withdrawal group, and two of three in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). The mean time spent in remission over 2 years was 698 days (95% CI 668-727) in the combination group, 684 days (651-717) in the infliximab withdrawal group, and 706 days (682-730) in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group. The difference in restricted mean survival time in remission was -14 days (95% CI -56 to 27) between the infliximab withdrawal group and the combination group and -22 days (-62 to 16) between the infliximab withdrawal group and the immunosuppressant withdrawal group. The 95% CIs contained the non-inferiority threshold (-35 days). We recorded 31 serious adverse events, in 20 patients, with no difference in frequency between groups. The most frequent serious adverse events were infections (four in the combination group, two in the infliximab withdrawal group, and one in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group) and Crohn's disease exacerbation (three in the combination group, four in the infliximab withdrawal group, and one in the immunosuppressant withdrawal group). No death nor malignancy was recorded.Interpretation: In patients with Crohn's disease in sustained steroid-free remission under combination therapy with infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy, withdrawal of infliximab should only be considered after careful assessment of risks and benefits for each patient, whereas withdrawal of immunosuppressant therapy could generally represent a preferable strategy when considering treatment de-escalation