P651 A randomised controlled trial of IBD-BOOST, a digital cognitive behavioural self-management programme for fatigue, and/or pain, and/or faecal incontinence in inflammatory bowel disease
Authors: Norton C , Moss Morris R , Hart A , Cleirigh Buettner F , Hamborg T , Miller L , Stagg I , Aziz Q , Czuber-Dochan W , Dibley L , Mihaylova B , Pollok R , Roukas C , Saxena S , Sweeney L , Taylor S , Wileman V 
Published: January 2024

Background

Many people with IBD experience fatigue, pain and faecal incontinence (FI), impacting quality of life (QoL). We developed an interactive digital online self-management intervention (IBD-BOOST) based on a theoretically informed logic model and cognitive behavioural techniques, to treat these symptoms. We aimed to assess if IBD-BOOST, alongside health care professional (HCP) support and care as usual (CAU), provides greater relief from symptoms and improvement of QoL compared with CAU alone.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic multi-centre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruiting patients from clinics and national registries who rated the impact of fatigue and/or pain and/or FI as ≥5/10. Those in the IBD-BOOST arm received 6 months access to the 12-session IBD-BOOST programme, a 30-minute telephone support call with a trained HCP after session 1 and weekly in-site email messages from the HCP for 3 months. The UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (UK-IBDQ) and global rating of symptom relief (GRSR) at 6 months were dual primary outcomes (alpha=0.025 was considered statistically significant as there were two primary outcomes). Other secondary outcomes, including individual symptoms, were measured at 6 and 12 months. Complier-averaged causal effects (CACE), sensitivity and pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted.

Results

780 participants were randomised (Figure 1), 432 with Crohn’s disease, 348 with ulcerative colitis or other IBD; 520 (66.7%) were female, mean age 49 years. At 6 months, both UK-IBDQ and GRSR were similar between the BOOST and CAU arms, p=0.19 for IBDQ and p=0.39 for GRSR (Table 1). Adverse events were similar between groups. FI score and EQ5D utility score (secondary outcomes) were significantly in favour of IBD-BOOST at 6 months, but pain and fatigue were no different. 57% of the intervention group completed a pre-defined minimum “dose” of 4 sessions (i.e. compliers). The CACE analysis suggested that compliers were more likely to report better QoL (p=0.03). Subgroup analysis of those meeting criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), showed that IBD-BOOST was more effective in improving IBDQ and GRSR at 6 months when compared with CAU for the IBD-IBS group (pinteraction=0.015 and 0.046, respectively).

Conclusion

This large RCT found that IBD-BOOST did not improve IBDQ and GRSR in patients with IBD and fatigue and/or pain and/or FI relative to CAU. Participants reported less FI at 6 and 12 months. Those who complied with the intervention showed a more pronounced IBDQ treatment effect. Those with IBD-IBS at baseline improved more than those without, suggesting a possible for further effectiveness research on IBD-BOOST.

Trial registration: ISRCTN71618461