Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Geldof, Jeroen
• LeBlanc, Jean-Frédéric
• Lucaciu, Laura
• Segal, Jonathan
• Lees, Charlie W
• Hart, Ailsa

Titel

Are we addressing the top 10 research priorities in IBD?

Ist Teil von

• Frontline gastroenterology, 2021-12, Vol.12 (7), p.564-569

Ort / Verlag

England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

Erscheinungsjahr

2021

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• BackgroundSince publication of the top 10 research priorities in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) based on the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, the question remains whether this has influenced the IBD-research landscape. This study aimed to create an overview of the current distribution of research interests of trials in the UK.MethodsThe ClinicalTrials.gov database and European Union Clinical Trials Register were screened for clinical trials set up from 9 August 2016 to 16 November 2019 in the UK involving adult patients with IBD.ResultsOf 20 non-industry-sponsored studies, a quarter investigated treatment strategies considering efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness (priority 1). Four evaluated the role of diet (priorities 3 and 7). Development/assessment of biomarkers for patient stratification (priority 2) and fatigue (priority 8) were subject of three studies. IBD-related pain and control of diarrhoea/incontinence were each subject of 2 studies (priorities 4 and 6). The effect of gut microbiota (priority 10) and optimal strategy for perianal Crohn’s disease (priority 5) was the focus of 2 studies each. One study evaluated surgery for terminal ileal Crohn’s disease (priority 9). Of 63 industry-sponsored studies, 59 focused on priority 1.ConclusionsThis study presents an impression of the breadth of the IBD-research landscape in the UK, in light of the top 10 research priorities published in 2016. Optimal treatment strategy has been the most studied research priority by academic and industry-sponsored trials. Fewer studies focused on patient-reported outcomes. It remains debatable to what extent the current research landscape adequately represents all stakeholders’ viewpoints on needs for expanded knowledge in IBD, particularly the patients’ perspective.