Curebase
San Francisco, California, 94122, United States
NCT Number: NCT04133519
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparator-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Two Self-administered behavioral treatments for Adult Subjects with Symptomatic Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–70 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
San Francisco, California, 94122, United States
EASITx is a pivotal study comparing two self-administered behavioral treatments for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The active treatment in EASITx is classified as Software as a Medical Device (SaaMD).
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The active treatment consists of 7 unique video/audio recordings administered via a mobile application every other week for 12 weeks (SaMD). Since subjects in both the active and comparator treatment arms receive a behavioral treatment, the subjects are blinded to active treatment.
The comparator treatment consists of an identical treatment platform, scheduling platform, and reminder platform as the Active Treatment Arm, but in place of Gut-Directed Hypnotherapy there is a comparator relaxation treatment administered on an identical schedule: 7 unique video/audio recordings administered via a mobile application every other week for 12 weeks.
Time frame: Baseline score (average of daily score for weeks -4 through -1) was compared to 4-weeks post-treatment (average daily score for weeks 13 through 16)
The primary endpoint of this study is abdominal pain intensity. The Instrument is a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS, 0= no pain, 10= worst pain). The subject is asked daily to record their "worst abdominal pain over the past 24-hours".
An Abdominal Pain Intensity Responder is defined as a subject whose daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the 4 weeks post-treatment (weeks 13 through 16) is at least 30% reduced compared to the daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the 4 weeks pre-treatment (weeks -4 through -1).
Time frame: Baseline score (average of daily score for weeks -4 through -1) was compared to 4-weeks post-treatment (average daily score for weeks 13 through 16)
The Instrument is a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS, 0= no pain, 10= worst pain). The subject is asked daily to record their "worst abdominal pain over the past 24-hours". Mean change in reported abdominal pain intensity.
Time frame: Change from baseline (weeks -4 to -1 before treatment) to 4-week post treatment period (Weeks 13-16)
Mean change in reported abdominal pain frequency. The abdominal pain frequency is based on the frequency of abdominal pain measured using a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS, 0= no pain, 10= worst pain). The subject is asked daily to record their "worst abdominal pain over the past 24-hours".
Average abdominal pain frequency is defined as the average number of days per week during the 4-week post-treatment assessment period in which the subjects recorded a 1 or greater on the daily pain measurement. Only days during which an assessment is recorded will be included in the calculation of average abdominal pain frequency. Days where severity was >0 were considered a day with pain and were recorded as positive. Days with a score of 0 were days without pain. Mean represents the mean number of days per week in each time period with abdominal pain. A lower score is a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline score (average of daily score for weeks -4 through -1) was compared to 4-weeks post-treatment (average daily score for weeks 13 through 16)
Number of Participants with a ≥ 30% improvement in the proportion of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores that fell within Group 2 (normal stools) compared with baseline (Weeks -4 through -1). The result represents the number of participants with ≥ 30% improvement in the percentage of normal stools The BSFS is a visual aid that allows patients to classify their bowel movements into seven groups ranging from a score of 1 (separate hard lumps) to 7 (watery, no solid pieces). The BSFS scores will be grouped as 1,2 (Group 1), 3,4,5 (Group 2) and 6,7 (Group 3). The mid-range bowel movements 3,4 and 5 (Group 2) define normal stools.
Time frame: Baseline score (average of daily score for weeks -4 through -1) was compared to 4-weeks post-treatment (average daily score for weeks 13 through 16)
Mean change in reported daily stool frequency Analyses of change in daily stool frequency will only include participants with IBS-C and IBS-D. IBS-C and IBS-D subtypes will be analyzed independently.
Time frame: Baseline (Week -4) to 4-weeks post-treatment (Week 16)
The IBS QOL is a 34 item IBS-specific, validated instrument. The 34 items are summed for a total score and then transformed to 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating better IBS specific quality of life. IBS QOL scores will be compared pre- and post-treatment and the mean difference compared by treatment.
Time frame: Baseline (Week -4) to 4-weeks post-treatment (Week 16)
Productivity and absenteeism will be evaluated using the patient reported Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) General Health score. The WPAI (Reilly 1993) is a 6-question survey of presenteeism (impairment at work / reduced on-the-job effectiveness) and absenteeism (work time missed).
The WPAI-GH consists of six questions: 1 = currently employed; 2 = hours missed due to health problems; 3 = hours missed other reasons; 4 = hours actually worked; 5 = degree health affected productivity while working (using a 0 to 10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)); 6 = degree health affected productivity in regular unpaid activities (VAS).
Outcomes are expressed as impairment percentages (0-100%) with higher numbers indicating greater impairment and less productivity (worse outcomes).
Time frame: 4-weeks post-treatment (Week 16)
Productivity and absenteeism will be evaluated using the patient reported Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) General Health score. The WPAI (Reilly 1993) is a 6-question survey of presenteeism (impairment at work / reduced on-the-job effectiveness) and absenteeism (work time missed).
The WPAI-GH consists of six questions: 1 = currently employed; 2 = hours missed due to health problems; 3 = hours missed other reasons; 4 = hours actually worked; 5 = degree health affected productivity while working (using a 0 to 10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)); 6 = degree health affected productivity in regular unpaid activities (VAS). Overall activity impairment is based on responses to Question 6.
Outcomes are expressed as impairment percentages (0-100%) with higher numbers indicating greater impairment and less productivity (worse outcomes).
metaMe Health
Industry
The Efficacy and Safety of IBS Digital Behavioral Treatment Study
Acronym: EASITx
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06687720
Colonic Diseases, Colonic Diseases, Functional
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
View Trial DetailsNCT07722572
Anxiety Disorders, Colonic Diseases
Istanbul, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial DetailsNCT02136745
Colonic Diseases, Colonic Diseases, Functional
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06268717
Abdominal Pain, Alpha-Gal Syndrome
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
View Trial Details