Status: Finalised
First registered on:
24/06/2015
Last updated on:
15/02/2018
1. Study identification
EU PAS Register NumberEUPAS10046
Official titleEvaluation of the effectiveness of the belatacept (Nulojix®) Patient Alert Card in patients following renal transplantation in European Economic Area countries.
Study title acronym
Study typeObservational study
Brief description of the studyThis is a study that evalustes the effectiveness of the belatacept patient alert card (PAC). Three epidemiological sub-studies will be conducted to make this evaluation:
a patient survey of understanding and implementation of the key messages in the belatacept PAC, a health care professional (HCP) survey of understanding and implementation of the key messages in the belatacept PAC and a a Clinical Outcomes Study using retrospective chart review to correlate clinical and safety outcomes with levels of understanding and implementation of the key messages in the PAC.
Was this study requested by a regulator?Yes: EMA
Is the study required by a Risk Management Plan (RMP)?
Not applicable
Regulatory procedure number (RMP Category 1 and 2 studies only)
Other study registration identification numbers and URLs as applicable
2. Research centres and Investigator details
Coordinating study entity
Centre to which the investigator belongsOXON
Department/Research group
Organisation/affiliationOxon Epidemiology Ltd.
Details of (Primary) lead investigator
Title Dr
Last name Qizilbash MBChB MRCP(UK) BSc MSc DPhil(Oxon.)
First name Nawab
Is this study being carried out with the collaboration of a research network?
No
Other centres where this study is being conducted
Multiple centres
In total how many centres are involved in this Study?20
Countries in which this study is being conducted
International study
Austria
France
Germany
Sweden
3. Study timelines: initial administrative steps, progress reports and final report
PlannedActual
Date when funding contract was signed05/08/201405/08/2014
Start date of data collection01/10/201601/10/2016
Start date of data analysis
Date of interim report, if expected
Date of final study report15/01/201825/01/2018
4. Sources of funding
Please provide estimates of the percentage of funding by source for this study
Names(s)Approximate % funding
Pharmaceutical companiesBristol Myers Squibb100
Charities
Government body
Research councils
EU funding scheme
5. Contact details for enquiries
Scientific Enquiries
Title Dr
Last name Qizilbash MBChB MRCP(UK) BSc MSc DPhil(Oxon.)
First name Nawab
Address line 1The Euston Office
Address line 21 Euston Square
Address line 340 Melton Street
CityLondon
PostcodeNW1 2FD
CountryUnited Kingdom
Phone number (incl. country code)34-629846059
Alternative phone number
Fax number (incl. country code)442033977497
Public Enquiries
Title Dr
Last name Qizilbash MBChB MRCP(UK) BSc MSc DPhil(Oxon.)
First name Nawab
Address line 1The Euston Office
Address line 21 Euston Square
Address line 340 Melton Street
CityLondon
PostcodeNW1 2FD
CountryUnited Kingdom
Phone number (incl. country code)34-629846059
Alternative phone number
Fax number (incl. country code)442033977497
6. Study drug(s) information
Single-Constituent (Substance INN)BELATACEPT
7. Medical conditions to be studied
Medical condition(s)Yes
Renal transplant
8. Population under study
Age
Adults (18 - 44 years)
Adults (45 - 64 years)
Adults (65 - 74 years)
Adults (75 years and over)
Sex
Male
Female
9. Number of subjects
Estimated total number of subjects70
Additional information
80 healthcare professionals
10. Source of data
Is this study being carried out with an established data source?No
Sources of data
Web-based healthcare professional survey, paper survey for patients and retrospective chart review study using an electronic case report form.
11. Scope of the study
What is the scope of the study?
Effectiveness evaluation
Primary scope : Effectiveness evaluation
12. Main objective(s)
What is the main objective of the study?
The main objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the belatacept patient alert card (PAC) in renal transplantation patients via three epidemiological sub-studies: a patient survey, a healthcare professional (HCP) survey and a clinical outcomes study using retrospective chart review.
Are there primary outcomes?Yes
Patient survey: proportion of correct responses to individual questions about receipt, knowledge, understanding and acting on the advice contained in the belatacept PAC.
HCP survey: proportion of correct responses to individual questions about understanding and implementation of key messages contained in the PAC.
Clinical outcomes study: proportion of serious infections.
Are there secondary outcomes?Yes
Patient survey:determinants of patient knowledge and understanding and implementation of the key messages.
HCP survey:determinants of HCP understanding and implementation of the key messages.
Clinical outcomes study:proportion of infections leading to discontinuation, mean time from symptom onset of infection to receipt of medical therapy and mean time from transplantation to graft rejection.
13. Study design
What is the design of the study?
Cross-sectional study
Healthcare professional survey, patient survey, retrospective chart review study
14. Follow-up of patients
Will patients be followed up?Not applicable/no follow-up
15. Data analysis plan
Please provide a brief summary of the analysis method
For the patient and HCP questionnaires, the percentage of patients/HCPs with responses to each question that indicate effectiveness of the PAC will be determined: receipt, awareness, usage, knowledge and comprehension of key messages. The primary endpoints of the patient survey responses indicating understanding and implementation will be analysed by baseline patient characteristics. The primary endpoints of the HCP survey responses indicating understanding and implementation of the PAC will be analysed by baseline HCP characteristics. Correlation between patients’ degree of understanding and implementation of the messages in the PAC with serious infections and other secondary endpoints will be studied through regression techniques.
16. ENCePP seal
Are you requesting the ENCePP seal for this study?
No
17. Full protocol
Not submitted
18. Study Results
Not submitted
Please list the 5 most relevant publications using data from your study
ReferenceLink to web-publication
None
19. Other relevant documents
Conflict(s) of interest of
investigator(s)Not submitted
Composition of Steering Group and
ObserversNot submitted
Other documentsNot
submitted
Signed Code of
Conduct Checklist
Not submitted
Signed Code of Conduct Declaration
Not submitted
Signed Checklist for Study
Protocols
Not submitted
