Search

Introduction: Discordance between gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and endoscopic inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is known. However, the correlations between symptoms and endoscopic and histologic (endo-histologic) mucosal healing and remains unknown., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected clinical, endoscopic, and histologic data on 254 colonoscopies from 179 unique adults at a tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2021. Spearman's rank was used to assess the correlation between patient reported outcomes and objective assessments of disease activity, as measured by validated instruments: Two-item patient-reported outcome measure (PRO-2) for stool frequency and rectal bleeding, the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) for endoscopic inflammation, and the Geboes score for histologic inflammation. The predictive value of objective assessments of inflammation and clinical symptoms was described using sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive value., Results: One-quarter (28%, 72/254) of cases were in endo-histologic remission; of these, 25% (18/72) report GI symptoms (22% diarrhea; 6% rectal bleeding). Endo-histologically active disease had higher sensitivity (95% rectal bleeding; 87% diarrhea) and negative predictive value (94% rectal bleeding, 78% diarrhea) for clinically active disease compared to active disease on endoscopic (77%) or histologic assessment only (80%). The specificity of endo/histologic inflammation for GI symptoms was < 65%. PRO-2 was positively correlated with endoscopic disease activity (Spearman's rank 0.57, 95% CI 0.54-0.60, p < 0.0001) and histologic disease activity (Spearman's rank 0.49, 0.45-0.53, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: One-quarter of patients with ulcerative colitis in endo-histologic (deep) remission have gastrointestinal symptoms, more commonly with diarrhea than rectal bleeding. Endo-histologic inflammation has high sensitivity (≥ 87%) for diarrhea/rectal bleeding., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, indirect comparative studies are needed to help position therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the efficacy of infliximab vs. tofacitinib for moderate-severe UC among biologic-naïve participants at post-induction., Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of patient-level data from four clinical trials including 659 biologic-naïve UC participants. We compared proportions of patients achieving week 8 clinical remission (CR), endoscopic improvement, and endoscopic remission. Clinical response at week 2 was also assessed. Multiple logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders identified as having an association with the outcome of interest on univariate analysis. Propensity scores were calculated to create a cohort of participants with similar distribution of baseline co-variates., Results: Patients treated with infliximab had significantly greater odds of CR at week 8 compared to tofacitinib [88/242 (36.4%) vs. 100/417 (24.0%), aOR: 1.65 (95% CI 1.11-2.44), p = 0.013]. Endoscopic improvement at week 8 was also significantly greater among infliximab-treated patients [149/242 (61.6%) vs. 159/417 (38.1%), aOR: 2.12 (95% CI 1.45-3.10), p < 0.001]. Similar findings were observed with week 8 endoscopic remission [61/242 (25.2%) vs. 43/417 (10.3%); aOR: 2.72 (95% CI 1.66-4.46), p < 0.001]. A similar proportion of participants attained clinical response at week 2 [205/242 (84.7%) vs. 334/417 (80.1%), aOR: 1.48 (95% CI 0.93-2.37), p = 0.101]. Similar results were observed among the propensity score matched cohort., Conclusion: Based on the efficacy observed in this post-hoc analysis, consideration should be given to use of infliximab over tofacitinib for treatment of moderate to severe biologic-naïve UC. However, baseline characteristic mismatches persisted despite propensity score matching, and further studies are needed to confirm our findings., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Indirect treatment comparisons using patient-level data are increasing in popularity within inflammatory bowel disease research. We compared the efficacy of adalimumab and vedolizumab for biologic-naïve moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) using indirect comparisons of phase 3 clinical trials and compared the results to the RCT VARSITY., Design: Pooled analysis of patient-level data from 518 biologic-naïve patients with UC was performed using GEMINI-1 and ULTRA-1. Proportions of patients achieving week 6 clinical remission and clinical response were compared, and propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression were used to account for potential confounders. These results were compared to those derived from VARSITY., Results: A numerically greater proportion of vedolizumab-treated patients from GEMINI-1 achieved week 6 clinical remission compared to those treated with adalimumab [136/388 (35.1%) vs. 38/130 (29.2%)]. Similar findings were observed among the propensity score matched cohort [33/110 (30.0%) vs. 25/110 (22.7%), adjusted OR (aOR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-3.02), p = 0.187]. A similar magnitude for absolute difference in the proportions of patients achieving week 6 clinical remission was observed from VARSITY in vedolizumab compared to adalimumab [131/305 (43.0%) vs. 114/307 (37.1%), OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.92-1.76), p = 0.142]., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, a similar magnitude in the absolute difference of efficacy at week 6 among biologic-naïve patients was observed using indirect comparisons of phase 3 clinical trial data as was observed in VARSITY. Indirect comparisons using patient-level clinical trial data could be used to inform drug choices for future head-to-head trials and guide positioning of drugs in the absence of head-to-head trials., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) improves short-term outcomes for ulcerative colitis (UC) patients hospitalized for acute flares. Longer-term impacts and cost-effectiveness are unknown., Methods: We compared disease outcomes and cost-effectiveness of HBOT in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone for UC patients hospitalized for acute flares using a microsimulation model. Published literature was used for transition probabilities, costs, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimates. We modeled 100,000 individuals in each group over a 5-year horizon and compared rates of re-hospitalization, rescue medical therapy, colectomy, death, and cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed with 500 samples and 250 trials, in addition to multiple microsimulation sensitivity analyses., Results: The use of HBOT at the time of index hospitalization for an acute UC flare is projected to reduce the risk of re-hospitalization, inpatient rescue medical therapy, and inpatient emergent colectomy by over 60% (p < 0.001) and mortality by over 30% (p <0.001), during a 5-year horizon. The HBOT strategy costs more ($5600 incremental cost) but also yielded higher QALYs (0.13 incremental yield), resulting in this strategy being cost-effective ($43,000/QALY). Results were sensitive to HBOT costs and rates of endoscopic improvement with HBOT. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses observed HBOT to be more cost-effective than standard of care in 95% of iterations., Conclusion: The use of HBOT to optimize response to steroids during the index hospitalization for an acute UC flare is cost-effective and is projected to result in significant reductions in disease-related complications in the long term., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Evidence is now available in support of using fecal biomarkers to monitor disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patient adherence is often cited as a barrier to implementation. We assessed patient determinants for using stool tests to monitor disease activity., Methods: Prospective interview of IBD patients using an analytic hierarchy matrix survey built to understand preferences for choosing between stool testing or colonoscopy for monitoring disease activity, after considering different test criteria (accuracy, preparation, pain, complications). Theoretical thresholds of misclassification were posed to patients to see how they might consider shifting from colonoscopy to stool testing., Results: A total of 100 patients (n = 51 CD, n = 46 male) were interviewed with median age and disease duration of 44 years (IQR 27-63) and 9 years (IQR 5-21), respectively. Stool-based testing was preferred over colonoscopy by 60% initially; however, a majority of participants changed their choice to colonoscopy after learning more about the diagnostic performance of currently available stool tests for disease monitoring (p < 0.001). Across all sub-groups, accuracy was ranked as the top criterion when choosing between stool-based testing and colonoscopy for disease activity assessments. Most patients were willing to choose stool-based testing over colonoscopy for disease monitoring if the stool test was wrong at most 1 in 20 times (5% misclassification rate)., Discussion: Accuracy is the most important criteria for IBD patients when choosing monitoring strategies, and a high degree of confidence is required of stool test results for patients to choose this strategy., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Treatment pathways for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are shifting to a more individualized, risk-stratified approach. The perception is that insurance policies may not have implemented this paradigm shift, particularly regarding access to newer agents. We evaluated patient access to advanced therapies by analyzing policy information from the Managed Markets Insight and Technology database., Methods: Coverage status as of December 2018 for all US lives was queried for adalimumab, infliximab, infliximab-dyyb, tofacitinib, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab by indication (UC and/or CD) and medical or pharmacy coverage benefit. Coverage status was classified by the number of biologic steps before access to specified drug as "No Biologic," "1 Prior Biologic," "2+ Prior Biologics," "Not Covered." Unknown lives were excluded from the analyses., Results: Coverage analysis was available for approximately 302 million lives under each medical and pharmacy benefit. Our analysis indicates that approximately half of covered lives had access to all agents (except tofacitinib) as first-line therapy; two-thirds had access after one biologic exposure. Among newer agents, vedolizumab had the widest coverage. For indications of UC and CD, 81% of known lives had access to vedolizumab with no prior biologic exposure required ("No Biologic"), 95% after "No Biologic" + "1 prior Biologic." Geographic variations were identified for coverage patterns., Conclusions: This US-based healthcare policy analysis points to an increased access to advanced therapies for UC and CD. An individualized, risk-stratified treatment approach integrating advanced therapies, including those recently approved, into treatment pathways for UC and CD is feasible.

Background and Aims: Gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly being used for evaluation of diarrhea. The impact of these tests on patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is unknown. We performed a time-interrupted cohort study comparing GPPs and conventional stool evaluation in patients with IBD with diarrhea., Methods: We included 268 consecutive patients with IBD who underwent GPP (BioFire Diagnostics ® ) (n = 134) or conventional stool culture and Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing (n = 134) during suspected IBD flare between 2012 and 2016. Primary outcome was composite of 30-day IBD-related hospitalization, surgery, or emergency department visit; secondary outcome was IBD treatment modification., Results: Overall, 41/134 (30.6%) patients tested positive on GPP (18 C. difficile, 17 other bacterial infections, and 6 viral pathogens) versus 14/134 patients (10.4%, all C. difficile) testing positive on conventional testing. Rate of IBD treatment modification in response to stool testing was lower in GPP group as compared conventional stool testing group (35.1 vs. 64.2%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, diagnostic evaluation with GPP was associated with three times higher odds of IBD-related hospitalization/surgery/ED visit (95% CI, 1.27-7.14), as compared to conventional stool testing. This negative impact was partly mediated by differences in ordering provider specialty, with non-gastroenterologists more likely to order GPP as compared to gastroenterologists., Conclusions: In patients with suspected flare of IBD, GPPs have higher pathogen detection rate and lead to lower rate of IBD treatment modification. A diagnostic testing strategy based on GPPs is associated with higher hospital-related healthcare utilization as compared to conventional stool testing, particularly when utilized by non-gastroenterologists.