4.7 Article

eHealth: individualisation of infliximab treatment and disease course via a self-managed web-based solution in Crohn's disease

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 840-849

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12043

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Infliximab (IFX) maintenance therapy for Crohn's disease (CD) is administered every 8 weeks, but inter-patient variation in optimal treatment intervals may exist. Aim To assess, in a prospective pilot study, the efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) of IFX maintenance treatment scheduled through web-based self-monitoring of disease activity. Methods Twenty-seven CD patients in IFX maintenance therapy were enrolled and received a standardised disease education and web-training. Using the http://www.cd.constant-care.dk concept, patients recorded their disease activity and faecal calprotectin weekly. From this, the inflammatory burden (IB) score was calculated, placing patients in the green, yellow or red zones of a 'traffic light' system. If placed in the yellow or red zones, the computer directed these patients to consult their physician for IFX infusion. Results Seventeen patients (63%) completed 52 weeks of follow-up, 6 (22%) completed 26 weeks and 4 (15%) were excluded due to loss of response, patient decision or non-adherence. In total, 121 IFX infusions were given with a median interval of 9 (range: 4-18) weeks. Only 10% of infusions were given at 8-week intervals, whereas 39% were administered with shorter and 50% with longer intervals respectively. The mean IB and the QoL remained stable during the web-treatment. One mild infusion reaction and one case of folliculitis were observed, while three patients underwent surgery. Conclusions The program http://www.cd.constant-care.dk appears to be a practical and safe concept for the individualised scheduling of maintenance treatment with IFX in patients with Crohn's disease. Larger studies are awaited to confirm this preliminary outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据