Benefits of Paediatric to Adult Transition Programme in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The BUTTERFLY Study of GETECCU and SEGHNP.

(1) Background: Transition is a planned movement of paediatric patients to adult healthcare systems, and its implementation is not yet established in all inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) units. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of transition on IBD outcomes. (2) Methods: Multicentre, retrospective and observational study of IBD paediatric patients transferred to an adult IBD unit between 2017-2020. Two groups were compared: transition (≥1 joint visit involving the gastroenterologist, the paediatrician, a programme coordinator, the parents and the patient) and no-transition. Outcomes within one year after transfer were analysed. The main variable was poor clinical outcome (IBD flare, hospitalisation, surgery or any change in the treatment because of a flare). Predictive factors of poor clinical outcome were identified with multivariable analysis. (3) Results: A total of 278 patients from 34 Spanish hospitals were included. One hundred eighty-five patients (67%) from twenty-two hospitals (65%) performed a structured transition. Eighty-nine patients had poor clinical outcome at one year after transfer: 27% in the transition and 43% in the no-transition group (p = 0.005). One year after transfer, no-transition patients were more likely to have a flare (36% vs. 22%; p = 0.018) and reported more hospitalisations (10% vs. 3%; p = 0.025). The lack of transition, as well as parameters at transfer, including IBD activity, body mass index < 18.5 and corticosteroid treatment, were associated with poor clinical outcome. One patient in the transition group (0.4%) was lost to follow-up. (4) Conclusion: Transition care programmes improve patients' outcomes after the transfer from paediatric to adult IBD units. Active IBD at transfer impairs outcomes.

Feasibility of a hybrid clinical trial for respiratory virus detection in toddlers during the influenza season.

BACKGROUND: Traditional clinical trials are conducted at investigator sites. Participants must visit healthcare facilities several times for the trial procedures. Decentralized clinical trials offer an interesting alternative. They use telemedicine and other technological solutions (apps, monitoring devices or web platforms) to decrease the number of visits to study sites, minimise the impact on daily routine, and decrease geographical barriers for participants. Not much information is available on the use of decentralization in randomized clinical trials with vaccines. METHODS: A hybrid clinical trial may be assisted by parental recording of symptoms using electronic log diaries in combination with home collected nasal swabs. During two influenza seasons, children aged 12 to 35 months with a history of recurrent acute respiratory infections were recruited in 12 primary health centers of the Valencia Region in Spain. Parents completed a symptom diary through an ad hoc mobile app that subsequently assessed whether it was an acute respiratory infection and requested collection of a nasal swab. Feasibility was measured using the percentage of returned electronic diaries and the validity of nasal swabs collected during the influenza season. Respiratory viruses were detected by real-time PCR. RESULTS: Ninety-nine toddlers were enrolled. Parents completed 10,476 electronic diaries out of the 10,804 requested (97%). The mobile app detected 188 potential acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and requested a nasal swab. In 173 (92%) ARI episodes a swab was taken. 165 (95.4%) of these swabs were collected at home and 144 (87.3%) of them were considered valid for laboratory testing. Overall, 152 (81%) of the ARIs detected in the study had its corresponding valid sample collected. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid procedures used in this clinical trial with the influenza vaccine in toddlers were considered adequate, as we diagnosed most of the ARI cases on time, and had a valid swab in 81% of the cases. Hybrid clinical trials improve participant adherence to the study procedures and could improve recruitment and quality of life of the participants and the research team by decreasing the number of visits to the investigator site. This report emphasises that the conduct of hybrid CTs is a valid alternative to traditional CTs with vaccines. This hybrid CT achieved high adherence of participant to the study procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2019-001186-33 (EudraCT).

[Diagnosis of celiac disease in clinical practice: present and future]. / Diagnóstico de enfermedad celiaca en la práctica clínica: presente y futuro.

INTRODUCTION: European guidelines for the diagnosis of celiac disease (CD) have been updated in 2020. The primary objective was to review the compliance with the diagnostic criteria for CD, according to ESPGHAN 2012. Secondarily, to describe the clinical characteristics of the patients and to assess the changes that would be implied by the application of the new 2020 criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study in which 10 centers participated. Patients from 0 to 16 years old with a new diagnosis of CD in 2018-2019 were included. Clinical, serological variables and the performance of intestinal biopsy (IB) were collected. RESULTS: 163 patients were included (57% female) with a median age of 7.6 years (SD 4.4). The form of presentation was: 47.8% classical, 30.7% no classical and 21.5% asymptomatic, with differences depending on age. Total IgA and anti-transglutaminase IgA antibodies were performed in all centers as the first diagnostic step. IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA) were performed in 80%, and HLA haplotype in 95%. Of the total, 78 cases (47.9%) met criteria for not performing intestinal biopsy (IB). IB was indicated in the remaining 85 patients, but was not performed in 29 cases (17.8%). The performance of IB was lower in the secondary hospitals than in the tertiary ones (p < 0.05). If we applied the ESPGHAN 2020 criteria, we would disregard the HLA study, and 21 more patients would not have required IB (going from 47.9% to 60.7% of the total). CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies are observed in the application of the ESPGHAN 2012 diagnostic criteria due to the different accessibility to EMA and endoscopic IB in secondary centers. With the ESPGHAN-2020 criteria, around 60% of patients will be able to be diagnosed without IB, provided that the determination of EMA is ensured.