Asynchronous electronic consultation between primary care and specialized care proved effective for continuum of care for viraemic hepatitis C patients.

INTRODUCTION: It has been proposed that primary care diagnose and treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, a care circuit between primary and specialized care based on electronic consultation (EC) can be just as efficient in the micro-elimination of HCV. It is proposed to study characteristics and predictive factors of continuity of care in a circuit between primary and specialized care. METHODS: From February/2018 to December/2019, all EC between primary and specialized care were evaluated and those due to HCV were identified. Variables for regression analysis and to identify predictors of completing the care cascade were recorded. RESULTS: From 8098 EC, 138 were performed by 89 (29%) general practitioners over 118 patients (median 50.8 years; 74.6% men) and were related to HCV (1.9%). Ninety-two patients (78%) were diagnosed>6 months ago, and 26.3% met criteria for late presentation. Overall, 105 patients required assessment by the hepatologist, 82% (n=86) presented for the appointment, of which 67.6% (n=71) were viraemic, 98.6% of known. Finally, 61.9% (n=65) started treatment. Late-presenting status was identified as an independent predictor to complete the care cascade (OR 1.93, CI 1.71-1.99, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Communication pathway between Primary and Specialized Care based on EC is effective in avoiding significant losses of viraemic patients. However, the referral rate is very low, high in late-stage diagnoses, heterogeneous, and low in new diagnoses. Therefore, early detection strategies for HCV infection in primary care are urgently needed.

Usefulness of magnetic resonance enterography in the clinical decision-making process for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) diagnosis on clinical decision-making regarding treatment choice and maintenance of treatment over time in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: A cohort of patients who underwent MRE for IBD assessment between 2011 and 2014 was analyzed. From clinical records, we retrospectively retrieved their demographic data and clinical data on their IBD at the time of MRE, the results of MRE and the patient's clinical course. Medical management decisions made during the three months following MRE and at the 15-month follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 474 MREs were reviewed. In the first three-month period, MRE results led to changes in the medical management of 266 patients (56.1%). Of those, maintenance therapy was altered in 140 patients (68.3%) (90.7% step-up and 9.3% top-down strategy), 65 (24.4%) were prescribed a course of steroids and 61 (22.9%) underwent surgery. MRE confirmed a CD diagnosis in 14/41 patients (34.1%) previously diagnosed with indeterminate colitis or ulcerative colitis and in 4/18 patients (22.2%) with suspected IBD. At the 15-month follow-up, treatment remained unchanged in 289 patients (65.8%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that MRE is a diagnostic tool that provides valid information for the clinical-decision making process for patients with CD.

Survey of adherence to treatment in inflammatory bowel disease. ENADEII study. / Encuesta de adherencia al tratamiento en enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. Estudio ENADEII.

The rate of non-adherence to medical treatment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is around 50%, with the consequent negative impact on treatment results, morbidity and cost. OBJECTIVES: To determine through an online survey among gastroenterologists with special dedication to IBD, their knowledge about the adherence to treatment of their patients and the methods used to improve it. METHODS: An email was sent to gastroenterologists from the technical office of the Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis Spanish working group (GETECCU), with a link to the online survey. RESULTS: 760 physicians were invited. One hundred eighty-four surveys were obtained (28.5%). A total of 68% of respondents had indexed IBD publications, 13% of which were on adherence. Although almost 99% considered adherence as very important/important, 25% of physicians did not assess it. Even though 100% considered that improving adherence would imply a better prognosis, 47% did not use any system to improve it. The factors associated with the assessment and improvement of adherence were: university hospital (81.4%), combined treatment with thiopurines and biological drugs (44.6%), physician gender (female) (63.1%), dedicating≥6hours weekly to IBD (71.6%), previous published indexed papers on IBD (68.5%) and on adherence in IBD (12.5%), and considering adherence as important/very important (98.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Although knowledge about the relevance of adherence to medical treatment in IBD is widespread, among the gastroenterologists with special dedication to IBD who were surveyed, almost half do not use any objective system to quantify it. An effort must be made to quantify and improve adherence to the treatment of these patients.