Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-TNF in Combination With Low-Dose Methotrexate vs Anti-TNF Monotherapy in Pediatric Crohn's Disease: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including infliximab and adalimumab, are a mainstay of pediatric Crohn's disease therapy; however, nonresponse and loss of response are common. As combination therapy with methotrexate may improve response, we performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pragmatic trial to compare tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with oral methotrexate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor monotherapy. METHODS: Patients with pediatric Crohn's disease initiating infliximab or adalimumab were randomized in 1:1 allocation to methotrexate or placebo and followed for 12-36 months. The primary outcome was a composite indicator of treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included anti-drug antibodies and patient-reported outcomes of pain interference and fatigue. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were collected. RESULTS: Of 297 participants (mean age, 13.9 years, 35% were female), 156 were assigned to methotrexate (110 infliximab initiators and 46 adalimumab initiators) and 141 to placebo (102 infliximab initiators and 39 adalimumab initiators). In the overall population, time to treatment failure did not differ by study arm (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05). Among infliximab initiators, there were no differences between combination and monotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.55-1.56). Among adalimumab initiators, combination therapy was associated with longer time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81). A trend toward lower anti-drug antibody development in the combination therapy arm was not significant (infliximab: odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.07; adalimumab: odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.24-2.07). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Combination therapy resulted in more AEs but fewer SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Among adalimumab but not infliximab initiators, patients with pediatric Crohn's disease treated with methotrexate combination therapy experienced a 2-fold reduction in treatment failure with a tolerable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT02772965.

Real life clinic visits do not match the ideals of shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To use observation to understand how decisions about higher-risk treatments, such as biologics, are made in pediatric chronic conditions. METHODS: Gastroenterology and rheumatology providers who prescribe biologics were recruited. Families were recruited when they had an outpatient appointment in which treatment with biologics was likely to be discussed. Consent/assent was obtained to video the visit. Audio of the visits in which a discussion of biologics took place were transcribed and analyzed. Our coding structure was based on prior research, shared decision making (SDM) concepts, and the initial recorded visits. Coded data were analyzed using content analysis and comparison with an existing model of SDM. RESULTS: We recorded 21 visits that included discussions of biologics. In most visits, providers initiated the decision-making discussion. Detailed information was typically given about the provider's preferred option with less information about other options. There was minimal elicitation of preferences, treatment goals, or prior knowledge. Few parents or patients spontaneously stated their preferences or concerns. An implicit or explicit treatment recommendation was given in nearly all visits, although rarely requested. In approximately one-third of the visits, the treatment decision was never made explicit, yet steps were taken to implement the provider's preferred treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We observed limited use of SDM, despite previous research indicating that parents wish to collaborate in decision making. To better achieve SDM in chronic conditions, providers and families need to strive for bidirectional sharing of information and an explicit family role in decision making.

Decision Support Needs for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth and Families: A Patient-Centered Needs Assessment.

PURPOSE: Due to the intertwining of medical and social decision-making, new approaches to shared decision-making are likely needed for supporting decisions related to the care of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) adolescents. Prior to developing decision support interventions for TGD youth, a decision support needs assessment must be completed. METHODS: Self-identified TGD youth, family members of TGD youth, clinicians caring for this population, and community advocates participated in one of six group level assessments (GLAs). GLA is a structured, participatory qualitative method that engages diverse groups of stakeholders in generating and evaluating ideas on the topic of interest. Upon completion of all GLAs, a survey was developed and distributed to GLA participants inviting them to rank ideas generated during the GLAs. RESULTS: Six major themes emerged from the GLAs regarding decision support needs, including: improving healthcare provider skills and education, increasing access to support outside the healthcare system, strengthening community and societal support, developing special information resources, supporting youth in leading decision-making about transition, and modifying the healthcare system. In the follow-up survey, improving healthcare provider skills and education was the most commonly chosen top priority. DISCUSSION: Participants identified decision support needs for TGD youth and their families that were mostly distinct from traditional decision support approaches. Participants' focus on the need to improve healthcare provider skills and education provides an opportunity to couple gender-focused education with shared decision-making skills, an approach that may be more sustainable than tools for specific decisions.

Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence. METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool. RESULTS: A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.