Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Increased Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Crohn's Disease Patients in Stable Remission: The Randomized Controlled LADI Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn's disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission. DESIGN: We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels. RESULTS: We randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: -0.017, 95% confidence interval [-0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (-€943, [-€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (-€2545, [-€2780; -€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost-utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [-€2099; €2050], €69 [-€2908; €1965] and -€455 [-€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: When the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Burden of disease and increasing prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in a population-based cohort in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Reported epidemiology and phenotype distributions vary widely and disease burden of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is poorly described. Our aim was to establish these features in a population-based cohort covering 319 976 inhabitants. Furthermore, differences between tertiary referral and peripheral hospital patients were quantified. METHODS: IBD patients in the adherence area of three peripheral hospitals (2004-2012) were included. Medical and surgical treatment data were obtained. Quality of life and disease activity were evaluated. An outpatient cohort from a tertiary referral centre was accrued. RESULTS: A total of 1461 patients were included: 761 (52.1%) with ulcerative colitis (UC), 579 (39.5%) with Crohn's disease (CD) and 121 (8.3%) with IBD-unspecified. Point prevalence of IBD was 432.1 per 100 000 inhabitants in 2010, which increased significantly over time, P-value of less than 0.0001. The mean annual incidence was 17.2 for UC, 10.5 for CD and 2.2 for IBD-unspecified. Tertiary referral Crohn's patients used thiopurines and biological therapy and underwent surgery significantly more often than patients in peripheral hospitals (P<0.0001). Disease activity correlated negatively with quality of life (P<0.0001) in UC and CD. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of IBD is still increasing. Burden of disease was significantly more severe, mainly in Crohn's patients, in the referral centre, highlighting the importance of population-based studies to accurately describe phenotype distribution and disease burden.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study).

BACKGROUND: Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma > or = 3 cm, located between 1-15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment. Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures. Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group. DISCUSSION: The TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (trialregister.nl) NTR1422.