Analysis of Safety, Medical Resource Utilization, and Treatment Costs by Drug Class for Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States Based on Insurance Claims Data.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional pharmaceutical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) provide limited disease/symptom control and are associated with an increased risk of adverse events (AEs). These limitations increase patient morbidity, medical resource utilization (MRU), and costs. METHODS: The IQVIA™ Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US database was leveraged to identify adult patients (> 18 years) with Crohn's disease (Crohn's) or ulcerative colitis (UC), who were new and chronic users (≥ 60 days) of oral corticosteroids (OCS), immunosuppressants (IS), anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (anti-TNF) or combinations thereof. Using aminosalicylate-treated patients as a reference, we compared AE incidence, MRU, and medical costs across drug classes. RESULTS: The analysis included 30,676 patients (Crohn's: n = 14,528; UC: n  = 16,148). OCS monotherapy was the strongest predictor of any AE occurring [Crohn's: hazard ratio 1.62 (1.51-1.73); UC: hazard ratio 1.57 (1.49-1.66)]. A similar pattern was observed for severe infection and bone-related conditions. Patients with UC or Crohn's receiving OCS or IS plus OCS were more likely to have emergency department visits, IBD-related hospitalizations/visits/procedures, and gastrointestinal surgery than were patients receiving other therapies. Annualized total medical costs (pharmacy plus hospital service costs) were greatest for anti-TNF plus IS or anti-TNF therapy in both Crohn's and UC. Annualized medical service costs (excluding IBD drug costs) were highest for patients initiating OCS-containing therapies [Crohn's: OCS, $27,041 (24,882-29,200) and OCS plus IS, $23,332 (19,889-26,775); UC: OCS, $19,659 (17,977-21,340)]. CONCLUSION: Although biologic therapies have higher pharmacy costs, treatment decisions should consider the increased AE risks and long-term MRU costs associated with chronic use of OCS-containing therapies. FUNDING: This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The journal's Rapid Service Fee and Open Access publication were paid for by ApotheCom on behalf of Genentech, a member of the Roche group who funded the study.

Lack of impact on polyp detection by fellow involvement during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data regarding the impact of fellow involvement during colonoscopy on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) have been reported in the literature. AIMS: Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to determine the impact of fellow participation during colonoscopy on the ADR and PDR. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, pertinent articles that reported ADR and/or PDR between attending physicians alone compared to gastroenterology fellows with attending physicians were obtained through database searches. Data was abstracted and pooled using a random effects model. The quality of each included study was ascertained using a modified version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and potential publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles that included 21,504 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria. The overall PDR and ADR were 44.4 and 30.8%, respectively. No significant differences were found between participant characteristics and colonoscopies performed with or without fellow participation. No significant differences were found in the relative rate of ADR (1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15) or PDR (1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14) with or without a fellow. An important limitation is that none of the included studies randomized fellow involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of a fellow during colonoscopy did not affect adenoma and polyp detection rates.