This is a not interventional, pragmatic, prospective, randomized (cluster) study to evaluate the potential benefit of a Treat to Target approach in comparison to routine treatment (i.e. usual care) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.
This study is reflecting the usual care either in accordance to the treating rheumatologist (arm: usual care) or in accordance to the international scientific recommendations (arm: T2T) The tight control means that as soon as a treatment is initiated in a patient, the time permitting to evaluate its potential efficacy/safety has to be determined. In terms of safety, such time frame can be very short based on the occurrence of adverse events. In terms of efficacy it is usually recommended to evaluate an NSAIDs after 2 to 4 weeks of treatment intake and the TNF blockers after 12 to 16 weeks. The Treat to Target means that there is an a priori decision of the target to reach while initiating a treatment and more importantly an a priori decision to intensify the treatment in case such target is not achieved. There will be 2 arms in the study (tight control and treat to target arm and usual care arm). 160 patients (80 patients per arm) will be included during one year by 18 centers (10 in France, 4 in Belgium and 4 in Netherlands). Patients will be followed during 1 year.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
163
UZ GENT
Ghent, Belgium
Jessa Ziekenhuis
Hasselt, Belgium
Reumatologie Medizorg
Merksem, Belgium
To compare the changes in ASASHI-NRS over the one year of follow-up in the 2 groups
In the original protocol, the main objective was "to compare the percentage of patients with a significant improvement in the ASAS-HI score after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups". However, after further research on the methodology to better assess the treatment effect on a pragmatic cluster-based strategy trial, we propose to change the primary objective for two reasons in order to: * Calculate a "significant improvement" of the ASAS-HI, we would need to be aware of the minimally clinically important difference, and this threshold has not been yet defined for the regular ASAS-HI nor for the ASAS-HI NRS. * Account for the reduced heterogeneity induced by the fact that patients are clustered, a multilevel analysis (e.g. mixed models with two random effects, the subject and the cluster or center) has been proposed as the most appropriate method. Therefore, we have amended the main objective to: "To compare the changes in ASASHI-NRS over the one year of follow-up in the 2 groups".
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the percentage of patients reaching an ASDAS major improvement after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the percentage of patients reaching an ASDAS clinically important improvement after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the percentage of patients reaching a BASDAI 50 after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the change in the ASDAS over one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the change in the BASDAI over one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
AZ Alma
Sijsele, Belgium
Chu Gabriel Montpied
Clermont-Ferrand, France
Chu Grenoble
Grenoble, France
Chu Le Mans
Le Mans, France
Hopital Lapeyronnie
Montpellier, France
Ch Mulhouse
Mulhouse, France
Hopital Cochin
Paris, France
...and 8 more locations
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the change in the ASAS-NSAID score over one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the WPAI after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the EQ5D after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the self-report questionnaire on health resource utilization after a one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the number and type of adverse events occuring over one year follow-up in the 2 groups.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up
To compare the treatment effect (...) within the T2T depending on the compliance to the T2T treatment.
Time frame: After a one year follow-up