Perception and clinical decisions from inflammatory bowel diseases' specialists towards positioning of new therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: A national web-based survey from the Brazilian IBD study group (GEDIIB).

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, new therapies with different mechanisms of action have been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Due to the lack of comparative head-to-head trials, the ideal positioning of agents as the most appropriate first- or second-line therapies remains to be defined. OBJECTIVE: This survey aimed to evaluate the perception and decisions of Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) specialists in positioning of new therapies (vedolizumab [VEDO], ustekinumab [UST] and tofacitinib [TOFA]) in the management of IBD in different clinical scenarios. METHODOLOGY: An anonymous national web-based questionnaire was used to determine the positioning of treatment options in different clinical scenarios (using Google Forms platform), which involved different age ranges, phenotypes, clinical situations and previous exposure to anti-TNF agents (14 scenarios for CD and 10 scenarios for UC). In CD, physicians could choose between UST or VEDO, whilst in UC, between UST, VEDO or TOFA. Six reasons for the specific choice were proposed, such as mechanism of action, safety, method of administration or onset of action. Statistical analysis was carried out with chi-square and t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 150 out of 672 GEDIIB IBD specialists (22.32%) responded to the survey. In CD scenarios, UST was the most dominant choice (11/14 scenarios), with VEDO dominating only 3 clinical situations. In UC scenarios, VEDO was the dominant choice (8/10), with UST being chosen for scenarios that included extraintestinal manifestations. Among the reasons for specific choices, the most commonly chosen were the higher efficacy due to the intrinsic mechanism of action and safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: UST was the dominant choice as compared to VEDO in CD in most scenarios, especially due to its mechanism of action and safety. VEDO was the dominant choice as compared to UST and TOFA in UC scenarios, mainly for reasons also related to its mechanism of action and safety profile. Comparative studies including patient outcomes are needed to better define the positioning of new IBD therapeutic options in our country.

Eradication Rate of Helicobacter pylori on the US-Mexico Border Using the Urea Breath Test.

OBJECTIVES: Helicobacter pylori is prevalent worldwide, especially in Latin America. Triple and quadruple antibiotic therapies have been relatively effective; however, resistance has emerged in recent years. The treatment success rate of these regimens on the border of the United States and Mexico is unknown. Our study attempted to determine eradication rates of two major regimens based on urea breath test (UBT) results in patients previously diagnosed as having H. pylori in a single center in El Paso, Texas, a city on the geographic border with Mexico. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with H. pylori who underwent UBT after being treated with triple therapy (amoxicillin/clarithromycin/proton pump inhibitor for 14 days), quadruple therapy (tetracycline/metronidazole/bismuth/proton pump inhibitor, usually for 10 days), or both for H. pylori from 2010 to 2015 in a county hospital. Patients were excluded if they did not complete therapy or if their treatment regimen was unknown. The Student t test and the χ2 test were used to analyze the data. The cumulative incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment success were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients completed the treatment for H. pylori and had UBT. Mean age was 53 years, 76% were women, 85% were Hispanic, and mean body mass index was 30.5 kg/m2. Of the 104 patients diagnosed as having H. pylori, 88 received triple therapy (84.6%) and 16 received quadruple therapy: 12 (11.5%) standard quadruple therapy, 4 (3.9%) triple therapy plus metronidazole. There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, or ethnicity. Overall, 90 (86.5%, 95% CI 78-92) patients had negative UBT after initial treatment. Based on posttreatment UBT, the triple therapy group had a similar eradication rate compared with the quadruple therapy group (78/88, 88.6% vs 12/16, 75.0%, P = 0.22). Of the 14 patients with positive posttreatment UBT, 12 (85.7%) received retreatment (2 were lost to follow-up), 11 (91.7%) received quadruple therapy, and 1 (8.3%) received triple therapy. Eradication was successful in 9 of 12 (75%, 95% CI 43-95) patients at retreatment. As such, of the initial 104 patients, 99/104 (95.2%) achieved H. pylori eradication posttreatment (either initial or retreatment). CONCLUSIONS: In a predominantly Hispanic population on the US-Mexico border, H. pylori eradication rates based on UBT results were relatively high and were similar for triple therapy and quadruple therapy. Quadruple therapy was effective for those who failed the initial H. pylori treatment. This may have implications for cost-effective therapy in our region.

Effects of Health Insurance Among Patients on Hepatitis C Treatment Along the Texas-Mexico Border.

The incidence and prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is steadily increasing across the world. Increasing morbidity and mortality rates associated with HCV are influencing research on treatment outcomes. The purpose of this project was to examine the effect of health insurance status and office visit compliance on sustained virologic response (SVR) in adult patients living along the Texas-Mexico border treated for HCV and who received dual or triple medication therapy between January 2010 and August 2013. The objective of this project was to determine whether there is an association between health insurance status, and/or office visit compliance, and SVR. We conducted a longitudinal retrospective chart review pilot study of patients who underwent treatment with dual and triple therapy in a border community in Texas. Results revealed that lack of insurance did not affect SVR in the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso-based clinic setting due to enrollment into a managed healthcare program. Providing a financial benefit may improve treatment compliance of HCV-infected individuals, reduce overall cost, and improve the patient's quality of life.

Perception and clinical decisions from inflammatory bowel diseases’ specialists towards positioning of new therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: A national web-based survey from the Brazilian IBD study group (GEDIIB) / Percepción y decisiones clínicas de especialistas en enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales hacia el posicionamiento de nuevas terapias en la enfermedad de Crohn y la colitis ulcerosa: una encuesta web de práctica clínica nacional del Grupo de Estudios Brasileño de Enfermedades Inflamatorias (GEDIIB)

Background: In the last decade, new therapies with different mechanisms of action have been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Due to the lack of comparative head-to-head trials, the ideal positioning of agents as the most appropriate first- or second-line therapies remains to be defined. Objective: This survey aimed to evaluate the perception and decisions of Brazilian Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) specialists in positioning of new therapies (vedolizumab [VEDO], ustekinumab [UST] and tofacitinib [TOFA]) in the management of IBD in different clinical scenarios. Methodology: An anonymous national web-based questionnaire was used to determine the positioning of treatment options in different clinical scenarios (using Google Forms platform), which involved different age ranges, phenotypes, clinical situations and previous exposure to anti-TNF agents (14 scenarios for CD and 10 scenarios for UC). In CD, physicians could choose between UST or VEDO, whilst in UC, between UST, VEDO or TOFA. Six reasons for the specific choice were proposed, such as mechanism of action, safety, method of administration or onset of action. Statistical analysis was carried out with chi-square and t-tests. Results: A total of 150 out of 672 GEDIIB IBD specialists (22.32%) responded to the survey. In CD scenarios, UST was the most dominant choice (11/14 scenarios), with VEDO dominating only 3 clinical situations. In UC scenarios, VEDO was the dominant choice (8/10), with UST being chosen for scenarios that included extraintestinal manifestations. Among the reasons for specific choices, the most commonly chosen were the higher efficacy due to the intrinsic mechanism of action and safety profile.(AU)

Antecedentes: En la última década se han aprobado nuevas terapias con diferentes mecanismos de acción para el tratamiento de la enfermedad de Crohn (EC) y de la colitis ulcerosa (CU) de moderada a grave. Debido a la falta de ensayos comparativos cara a cara, aún no se ha definido el posicionamiento ideal de los agentes como terapias de primera o segunda línea más adecuadas. Objetivo: El objetivo de esta encuesta fue evaluar la percepción y las decisiones de los especialistas brasileños en enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales (EII) en el posicionamiento de las nuevas terapias (vedolizumab [VEDO], ustekinumab [UST] y tofacitinib [TOFA]) en el manejo de la EII en diferentes escenarios clínicos. Metodología: Se utilizó un cuestionario nacional anónimo basado en la web para determinar el posicionamiento de las opciones de tratamiento en diferentes escenarios clínicos (utilizando la plataforma Google Forms), que implicaban diferentes rangos de edad, fenotipos, situaciones clínicas y exposición previa a agentes anti-TNF (14 escenarios para la EC y 10 escenarios para la CU). En la EC, los médicos podían elegir entre UST o VEDO, mientras que, en la CU, entre UST, VEDO o TOFA. Se propusieron 6 razones para la elección específica, como el mecanismo de acción, la seguridad, el método de administración o el inicio de acción. El análisis estadístico se llevó a cabo con las pruebas de Chi-cuadrado y la t de Student. Resultados: Un total de 150 de los 672 especialistas en EII del Grupo de Estudios Brasileño de Enfermedades Inflamatorias (GEDIIB) (22,32%) respondieron a la encuesta. En los escenarios de la EC, la UST fue la opción más dominante (11/14 escenarios), y la VEDO solo dominó 3 situaciones clínicas. En los escenarios de la CU, la VEDO fue la elección dominante (8/10), siendo la UST la elegida para los escenarios que incluían manifestaciones extraintestinales.(AU)