Web-based dietary assessment and advice helps inflammatory bowel disease patients to improve their diet quality.

Time to evaluate diet quality and give dietary advice is limited in clinical IBD practice. The Eetscore is a web-based tool that assesses diet quality according to the Dutch dietary guidelines and provides personalised dietary advice. We aimed to assess diet quality of IBD patients using the Eetscore and to study changes in diet quality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical disease activity over time. A prospective cohort study was performed in 195 adult IBD patients. Participants were invited to fill out questionnaires (Eetscore-FFQ, short IBDQ and p-HBI/p-SCCAI) at baseline and after 1 and 4 months. The Eetscore calculates diet quality based on 16 food components (10 points per component, total score 0-160; the higher the better) and provides dietary advice per component based on the assessment. At baseline, mean diet quality was 98±19. Diet quality was positively associated with age, female gender and level of education. Component scores were highest for red meat, wholegrain products, and sweetened beverages, and lowest for legumes, nuts, and processed meat. Over time, diet quality increased to 107±21 at 4 months (p<0.001). Each 10-point improvement in diet quality was associated with an increase in HRQoL (ß=0.4 (95%CI 0.02; 0.7), p=0.04). Clinical disease activity did not change. In conclusion, diet quality of IBD patients significantly improved following personalised dietary advice of the Eetscore. Improvement of diet quality was associated with a slight improvement in HRQoL. The Eetscore is a practical and useful tool to monitor and support a healthy diet in IBD patients.

A trial-based economic evaluation of peppermint oil for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent, chronic gastrointestinal disorder that imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden. Peppermint oil is a frequently used treatment for IBS, but evidence about cost-effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of small-intestinal release peppermint oil versus placebo in IBS patients. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial, cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as (1) incremental costs per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY), and (2) incremental costs per successfully treated patient, that is per abdominal pain responder (according to FDA definitions), both after an eight-week treatment period with placebo versus peppermint oil. Cost-utility and uncertainty were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 126 patients (N = 64 placebo, N = 62 small-intestinal release peppermint oil). Peppermint oil was a dominant treatment compared to placebo in 46% of bootstrap replications. Peppermint oil was also more effective but at higher cost in 31% of replications. The net-benefit acceptability curve showed that peppermint oil has a 56% probability of being cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €10.000/QALY. Peppermint oil was also a dominant treatment per additional successfully treated patient according to FDA definitions, that is in 51% of replications. In this case, the acceptability curve showed an 89% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with IBS, small-intestinal release peppermint oil appears to be a cost-effective treatment although there is uncertainty surrounding the ICER. When using abdominal pain responder as outcome measure for the ICER, peppermint oil has a high probability of being cost-effective. The use of peppermint oil, which is a low-cost treatment, can be justified by the modest QALY gains and slightly higher proportion of abdominal pain responders. More research and long-term data are necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of peppermint oil. NCT02716285.

Multimodal treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease: seton versus anti-TNF versus advancement plasty (PISA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no guideline for the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. Most patients receive anti-TNF medication, but no long-term results of this expensive medication have been described, nor has its efficiency been compared to surgical strategies. With this study, we hope to provide treatment consensus for daily clinical practice with reduction in costs. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Crohn's disease who are over 18 years of age, with newly diagnosed or recurrent active high perianal fistulas, with one internal opening and no anti-TNF usage in the past three months will be considered. Patients with proctitis, recto-vaginal fistulas or anal stenosis will be excluded. Prior to randomisation, an MRI and ileocolonoscopy are required. All treatment will start with seton placement and a course of antibiotics. Patients will then be randomised to: (1) chronic seton drainage (with oral 6-mercaptopurine (6MP)) for one year, (2) anti-TNF medication (with 6MP) for one year (seton removal after six weeks) or (3) advancement plasty after eight weeks of seton drainage (under four months anti-TNF and 6MP for one year). The primary outcome parameter is the number of patients needing fistula-related re-intervention(s). Secondary outcomes are the number of patients with closed fistulas (based on an evaluated MRI score) after 18 months, disease activity, quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: The PISA trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with Crohn's disease and high perianal fistulas. With the comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies, we will be able to comment on the efficiency of the various treatment strategies, with respect to several long-term outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register identifier: NTR4137 (registered on 23 August 2013).

Increased prevalence of restless legs syndrome in patients with Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine (a) the incidence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), (b) whether and how the occurrence and severity of RLS is related to severity of CD, and (c) how RLS influences the quality of life of CD patients. BASIC METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a random selection of 144 CD patients and 80 controls. Differences were calculated using a χ-test (categorical data), an independent T-test (continuous data, normal distribution), or a Mann-Whitney U-test (continuous data, non-normal distribution). Logistic regression analysis was carried out to establish the relation between CD and RLS after adjusting for risk factors. MAIN RESULTS: The prevalence of RLS was 25.7% (37/144) in CD patients compared with 12.5% (10/80) in the control group (P=0.02). CD patients using caffeine and patients with arthralgias had a higher risk for RLS. A higher score on the modified Harvey Bradshaw Index and CD-related surgery were also associated with a higher risk for RLS. CD-related surgery was also associated with a more severe course of RLS. Patients and controls with RLS had a lower score on 'physical functioning', one of the subcategories of the RAND-36 quality-of-life questionnaire. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION: RLS occurs more frequently in patients with CD compared with healthy individuals. A more severe course of CD seems to be associated with a higher risk for RLS. The presence of RLS has a negative influence on quality of life, mainly interfering with physical activities of daily life.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care fecal calprotectin and immunochemical occult blood tests for diagnosis of organic bowel disease in primary care: the Cost-Effectiveness of a Decision Rule for Abdominal Complaints in Primary Care (CEDAR) study.

BACKGROUND: Fecal biomarker tests that differentiate between organic bowel disease (OBD) and non-OBD in primary care patients with persistent lower-abdomen complaints could reduce the number of unnecessary referrals for endoscopy. We quantified the accuracy of fecal calprotectin and immunochemical occult blood (iFOBT) point-of-care (POC) tests and a calprotectin ELISA in primary care patients with suspected OBD. METHODS: We performed biomarker tests on fecal samples from 386 patients with lower-abdomen complaints suggestive for OBD. Endoscopic and histological diagnosis served as reference. RESULTS: OBD was diagnosed in 99 patients (prevalence 25.9%); 19 had adenocarcinoma, 53 adenoma, and 27 inflammatory bowel disease. Sensitivity for OBD was 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.72) for calprotectin POC, 0.56 (0.46-0.66) for iFOBT POC, and 0.74 (0.65-0.82) for calprotectin ELISA; specificities were 0.53 (0.48-0.59), 0.83 (0.78-0.87), and 0.47 (0.41-0.53), respectively. Negative predictive values (NPVs) were 0.81 (0.74-0.86), 0.85 (0.80-0.88), and 0.84 (0.78-0.89); positive predictive values (PPVs) varied from 0.32 (0.26-0.39) and 0.33 (0.27-0.39) (calprotectin tests) to 0.53 (0.44-0.63) (iFOBT POC). Combining the 2 POC tests improved sensitivity [0.79 (0.69-0.86)] and NPV [0.87 (0.81-0.91)] but lowered specificity [0.49 (0.44-0.55)] and PPV [0.35 (0.29-0.42)]. When adenomas ≤1 cm were considered non-OBD, the NPV of all tests improved to >0.90 [combined POC tests, 0.97 (0.93-0.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of the tests alone or combined was insufficient when all adenomas were considered OBD. When only adenomas >1 cm were considered OBD, all tests could rule out OBD to a reasonable extent, particularly the combined POC tests. The tests were less useful for inclusion of OBD.