Greater Transplant-Free Survival in Patients Receiving Obeticholic Acid for Primary Biliary Cholangitis in a Clinical Trial Setting Compared to Real-World External Controls.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) Obeticholic Acid (OCA) International Study of Efficacy (POISE) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrated that OCA reduced biomarkers associated with adverse clinical outcomes (ie, alkaline phosphatase, bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase) in patients with PBC. The objective of this study was to evaluate time to first occurrence of liver transplantation or death in patients with OCA in the POISE trial and open-label extension vs comparable non-OCA-treated external controls. METHODS: Propensity scores were generated for external control patients meeting POISE eligibility criteria from 2 registry studies (Global PBC and UK-PBC) using an index date selected randomly between the first and last date (inclusive) on which eligibility criteria were met. Cox proportional hazards models weighted by inverse probability of treatment assessed time to death or liver transplantation. Additional analyses (Global PBC only) added hepatic decompensation to the composite end point and assessed efficacy in patients with or without cirrhosis. RESULTS: During the 6-year follow-up, there were 5 deaths or liver transplantations in 209 subjects in the POISE cohort (2.4%), 135 of 1381 patients in the Global PBC control (10.0%), and 281 of 2135 patients in the UK-PBC control (13.2%). The hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.10-0.83) for POISE vs Global PBC and 0.30 (95% CI, 0.12-0.75) for POISE vs UK-PBC. In the Global PBC study, HR was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.03-1.22) for patients with cirrhosis and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.09-1.04) for those without cirrhosis; HR was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.21-0.85) including hepatic decompensation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with OCA in a trial setting had significantly greater transplant-free survival than comparable external control patients.

A consensus integrated care pathway for patients with primary biliary cholangitis: a guideline-based approach to clinical care of patients.

INTRODUCTION: Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is an infrequent, immune-mediated cholestatic liver disease, which can lead to liver fibrosis, cirrhosis and complications of end-stage liver disease. The established goals of treatment of PBC are prevention of end-stage liver disease and amelioration of associated symptoms. The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) management guidelines provide extensive recommendations on the diagnosis and management of PBC. AREAS COVERED: This article describes the development by expert consensus of a 'PBC Integrated Patient Care Pathway' to simplify and standardize the management of PBC for clinicians based on current practice. EXPERT OPINION: Guideline adoption is potentially poor in practice since most patients with PBC in the community are seen by general gastroenterologists or hepatologists without a special interest in autoimmune liver disease. The PBC Integrated Patient Care Pathway is a best practice tool for clinicians designed to complement the EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of PBC patients. It gives clinicians a practical decision tree of the key steps in PBC management, thereby providing a simplified framework and an opportunity for more uniform practice that supports the safe and timely adoption of varied models of care provision to patients with PBC.

Peripatetic intravenous service for metabolic bone disease: case study in patient centred-care for new NHS.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a 'close to patient' peripatetic intravenous service (PIVS) for delivery of specialist osteoporosis care in a community setting without increasing cost and with a reduced carbon footprint. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost and feasibility of a PIVS for intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonate treatment were modelled using UK National Health Service costings and then tested in the field for 1 year. Average patient mileage to peripatetic sites was compared with mileage travelled if treated at the base hospital (current practice). The method of travel to hospital (current practice) or peripatetic sites (new study) was ascertained together with patients' preference for the new or the current system. Peripatetic sites were researched and those with suitable facilities selected. Data for fuel consumption were based on a usage of 1 litre per 14.5 km. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was cost comparison between hospital and peripatetic services. Others included patient satisfaction, miles saved, method of travel to the clinic and changes in CO(2) emissions. RESULTS: Cost per patient, including drugs, lies between pound557 and pound622 annually for 1000 and 500 patients, respectively which is cost-neutral compared with hospital attendance. PIVS was rated more convenient by 98% of patients. Hospital transport was significantly reduced and the total monthly saving of 2000 miles has reduced CO(2) emission by 6072 kg p.a. No medical emergency occurred in 410 infusions. CONCLUSIONS: PIVS is cost neutral compared with a conventional service, leads to a better patient experience, a significant cutback in hospital transport costs and a reduction of the NHS carbon footprint. However not all drugs may be suitable for this service: the area served was rural with large distances and poor public transport and mileage savings may not accrue in urban areas. Insurance was not included in the calculation of costs.