A new study published in the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology reveals that the type of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) cases being used to conduct major randomized controlled trials for development of new therapies are not the typical cases which physicians come across in their day-to-day practice.
The two major, often debilitating, illnesses that are recognized as IBD are ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. The introduction of biologics the most prescribed medications for IBD patients have dramatically impacted the ability to manage disease activity. However, a substantial percentage of IBD patients will have no response to these medications or lose response over time. This fact not only highlights the need for additional investigation of therapeutic targets, but also strategies to identify the optimal scenario for greatest therapeutic effect.
"Many outpatients with moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease may not qualify for trials of new treatment options," said Christina Ha, MD, of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and lead author of this study. "Because of the heterogeneity of the inflammatory bowel disease patient population in terms of age of onset, disease behavior and severity, many patients may not meet the strict entry criteria for clinical trial participation. However, we often presume similar therapeutic effect among our clinic patients as demonstrated in clinical trials."
Results from randomized clinical trials form the basis for FDA approval of treatments, expert recommendations and guidelines for the management of IBD patients, and are currently the best approach available to study treatment effects. However, by limiting the available pool of potential study patients through strict inclusion and exclusion criteria in an effort to maximize clinical trial results, these trial results may have limited applicability in the real-world doctor's office.
In addition, limiting selection criteria requires larger study populations, longer durations of follow-up observation and substantially greater cost. However, shifting to a more pragmatic-based approach with minimal study exclusions may help physicians generalize study results to their day-to-day practice as well as support randomized controlled trial findings in a more common clinical practice setting.