Appropriateness of Testing for Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Agent and Antibody Concentrations, and Interpretation of Results.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The availability of tests for blood concentrations of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and antibodies against these drugs could improve dose selection for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there is little consensus on when to test and how to interpret test results. We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine when these tests are appropriate and how to clinically interpret their results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in November 2013 to identify observational or experimental studies of the measurement of anti-TNF drug and antibody concentrations in patients with IBD and interpretation of their results. We developed 35 scenarios that assessed the appropriateness of testing and 143 scenarios that addressed clinical strategies in response to test results, and presented the findings to an expert panel. The appropriateness of each scenario was rated before and after an in-person meeting with the panel. Panelists rated the appropriateness of various clinical management options including changing therapy within class, switching out of class, adjusting drug dose or interval, adding or adjusting concomitant immune modulators, and doing nothing for each of 6 permutations of high versus low drug concentrations and high, low, or undetectable antibody concentrations. Disagreement was assessed using a validated index. RESULTS: Assessment of anti-TNF drug and antibody concentrations was rated appropriate at the end of induction therapy in primary nonresponders, in secondary nonresponders, at least once during the first year of maintenance therapy, and following a drug holiday. Routine assessment in responders at the end of induction was rated uncertain. In nearly all scenarios, escalation of drug dosing was rated appropriate when drug concentration was low in the absence of antibodies, and switching within class was rated appropriate when antibodies were present. Other recommendations depended on the specific clinical scenario for which the test was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method of analysis, an expert panel recommends testing for drug and antibody concentrations in many clinical scenarios. The appropriate timing and best way to respond to anti-TNF drug and antibody testing for IBD depends on the specific clinical scenario. These recommendations can help guide clinicians to best optimize anti-TNF therapy.

Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Associated Peripheral Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-associated peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA) decreases quality of life and remains poorly understood. Given the prevalence of this condition and its negative impact, it is surprising that evidence-based disease definitions and diagnostic strategies are lacking. This systematic review summarizes available data to facilitate development and validation of diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, and imaging indices specific to this condition. METHODS: A literature search was conducted. Consensus or classification criteria, case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials related to diagnosis were included. RESULTS: A total of 44 studies reporting data on approximately 1500 patients with pSpA were eligible for analysis. Data quality across studies was only graded as fair to good. Due to large heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible. The majority of studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes and a physical examination. A total of 13 studies proposed or validated screening tools, consensus, classification, or consensus criteria. A total of 28 studies assessed the role of laboratory tests, none of which were considered sufficiently accurate for use in diagnosis. A total of 17 studies assessed the role of imaging, with the available literature insufficient to fully endorse any imaging modality as a robust diagnostic tool. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights existing inconsistency and lack of a clear diagnostic approach for IBD-associated pSpA. Given the absence of an evidence-based approach, a combination of existing criteria and physician assessment should be utilized. To address this issue comprehensively, our future efforts will be directed toward pursuit of a multidisciplinary approach aimed at standardizing evaluation and diagnosis of IBD-associated pSpA.

This systematic review highlights the lack of an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease­associated peripheral spondyloarthritis and the need to standardize evaluation and diagnosis via multidisciplinary collaboration with development of patient-reported outcomes and imaging indices.

Impact of the Mobile HealthPROMISE Platform on the Quality of Care and Quality of Life in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Study Protocol of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic condition of the bowel that affects over 1 million people in the United States. The recurring nature of disease makes IBD patients ideal candidates for patient-engaged care that is centered on enhanced self-management and improved doctor-patient communication. In IBD, optimal approaches to management vary for patients with different phenotypes and extent of disease and past surgical history. Hence, a single quality metric cannot define a heterogeneous disease such as IBD, unlike hypertension and diabetes. A more comprehensive assessment may be provided by complementing traditional quality metrics with measures of the patient's quality of life (QOL) through an application like HealthPROMISE. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial is to determine the impact of the HealthPROMISE app in improving outcomes (quality of care [QOC], QOL, patient adherence, disease control, and resource utilization) as compared to a patient education app. Our hypothesis is that a patient-centric self-monitoring and collaborative decision support platform will lead to sustainable improvement in overall QOL for IBD patients. METHODS: Participants will be recruited during face-to-face visits and randomized to either an interventional (ie, HealthPROMISE) or control (ie, education app). Patients in the HealthPROMISE arm will be able to update their information and receive disease summary, quality metrics, and a graph showing the trend of QOL (SIBDQ) scores and resource utilization over time. Providers will use the data for collaborative decision making and quality improvement interventions at the point of care. Patients in the control arm will enter data at baseline, during office visits, and at the end of the study but will not receive any decision support (trend of QOL, alert, or dashboard views). RESULTS: Enrollment in the trial will be starting in first quarter of 2015. It is intended that up to 300 patients with IBD will be recruited into the study (with 1:1 allocation ratio). The primary endpoint is number of quality indicators met in HealthPROMISE versus control arm. Secondary endpoints include decrease in number of emergency visits due to IBD, decrease in number of hospitalization due to IBD, change in generic QOL score from baseline, proportion of patients in each group who meet all eligible outpatient quality metrics, and proportion of patients in disease control in each group. In addition, we plan to conduct protocol analysis of intervention patients with adequate HealthPROMISE utilization (more than 6 log-ins with data entry from week 0 through week 52) achieving above mentioned primary and secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: HealthPROMISE is a unique cloud-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) and decision support tool that empowers both patients and providers. Patients track their QOL and symptoms, and providers can use the visual data in real time (integrated with electronic health records [EHRs]) to provide better care to their entire patient population. Using pragmatic trial design, we hope to show that IBD patients who participate in their own care and share in decision making have appreciably improved outcomes when compared to patients who do not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02322307; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02322307 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6W8PoYThr).