Background: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of... Show moreBackground: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of increased adalimumab dose intervals versus conventional dosing in patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission. Methods: The LADI study was a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial, done in six academic hospitals and 14 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Adults (aged >= 18 years) diagnosed with luminal Crohn's disease (with or without concomitant perianal disease) were eligible when in steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (defined as Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] score <5, faecal calprotectin <150 mu g/g, and C-reactive protein <10 mg/L) for at least 9 months on a stable dose of 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the intervention group or control group by the coordinating investigator using a secure web-based system with variable block randomisation (block sizes of 6, 9, and 12). Randomisation was stratified on concomitant use of thiopurines and methotrexate. Patients and health-care providers were not masked to group assignment. Patients allocated to the intervention group increased adalimumab dose intervals to 40 mg every 3 weeks at baseline and further to every 4 weeks if they remained in clinical and biochemical remission at week 24. Patients in the control group continued their 2-weekly dose interval. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of persistent flares at week 48 defined as the presence of at least two of the following criteria: HBI score of 5 or more, C-reactive protein 10 mg/L or more, and faecal calprotectin more than 250 mu g/g for more than 8 weeks and a concurrent decrease in the adalimumab dose interval or start of escape medication. The non-inferiority margin was 15% on a risk difference scale. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03172377, and is not recruiting. Findings Between May 3, 2017, and July 6, 2020, 174 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=113) or the control group (n=61). Four patients from the intervention group and one patient from the control group were excluded from the analysis for not meeting inclusion criteria. 85 (50%) of 169 participants were female and 84 (50%) were male. At week 48, the cumulative incidence of persistent flares in the intervention group (three [3%] of 109) was non-inferior compared with the control group (zero; pooled adjusted risk difference 1 center dot 86% [90% CI -0 center dot 35 to 4 center dot 07). Seven serious adverse events occurred, all in the intervention group, of which two (both patients with intestinal obstruction) were possibly related to the intervention. Per 100 person-years, 168 center dot 35 total adverse events, 59 center dot 99 infection-related adverse events, and 42 center dot 57 gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in the intervention group versus 134 center dot 67, 75 center dot 03, and 5 center dot 77 in the control group, respectively. Interpretation The individual benefit of increasing adalimumab dose intervals versus the risk of disease recurrence is a trade-off that should take patient preferences regarding medication and the risk of a flare into account. Show less
Study Design: Literature review.Objective: To describe whether practice variation studies on surgery in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease used adequate study methodology to identify... Show moreStudy Design: Literature review.Objective: To describe whether practice variation studies on surgery in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease used adequate study methodology to identify unwarranted variation, and to inform quality improvement in clinical practice. Secondary aim was to describe whether variation changed over time.Methods: Literature databases were searched up to May 4th, 2021. To define whether study design was appropriate to identify unwarranted variation, we extracted data on level of aggregation, study population, and case-mix correction. To define whether studies were appropriate to achieve quality improvement, data were extracted on outcomes, explanatory variables, description of scientific basis, and given recommendations. Spearman's rho was used to determine the association between the Extreme Quotient (EQ) and year of publication.Results: We identified 34 articles published between 1990 and 2020. Twenty-six articles (76%) defined the diagnosis. Prior surgery cases were excluded or adjusted for in 5 articles (15%). Twenty-three articles (68%) adjusted for case-mix. Variation in outcomes was analyzed in 7 articles (21%). Fourteen articles (41%) identified explanatory variables. Twenty-six articles (76%) described the evidence on effectiveness. Recommendations for clinical practice were given in 9 articles (26%). Extreme Quotients ranged between 1-fold and 15-fold variation and did not show a significant change over time (rho= -.33, P= .09).Conclusions: Practice variation research on surgery in patients with degenerative disc disease showed important limitations to identify unwarranted variation and to achieve quality improvement by public reporting. Despite the availability of new evidence, we could not observe a significant decrease in variation over time. Show less
