A Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial of the Use of the Smartphone-Based Health Applications IBDsmart and IBDoc in the Care of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Providing timely follow-up care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease in remission is important but often difficult because of resource limitations. Using smartphones to communicate symptoms and biomarkers is a potential alternative. We aimed to compare outpatient management using 2 smartphone apps (IBDsmart for symptoms and IBDoc for fecal calprotectin monitoring) vs standard face-to-face care. We hypothesized noninferiority of quality of life and symptoms at 12 months plus a reduction in face-to-face appointments in the smartphone app group. METHODS: Inflammatory bowel disease outpatients (previously seen more often than annually) were randomized to smartphone app or standard face-to-face care over 12 months. Quality of life and symptoms were measured quarterly for 12 months. Acceptability was measured for gastroenterologists and patients at 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred people (73 Crohn's disease, 49 male, average age 35 years) consented and completed baseline questionnaires (50 in each group). Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses revealed noninferiority of quality of life and symptom scores at 12 months. Outpatient appointment numbers were reduced in smartphone app care (P < 0.001). There was no difference in number of surgical outpatient appointments or number of disease-related hospitalizations between groups. Adherence to IBDsmart (50% perfect adherence) was slightly better than adherence to IBDoc (30% perfect adherence). Good acceptability was reported among most gastroenterologists and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Remote symptom and fecal calprotectin monitoring is effective and acceptable. It also reduces the need for face-to-face outpatient appointments. Patients with mild-to-moderate disease who are not new diagnoses are ideal for this system. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000342516.

Sorafenib prescribed by gastroenterologists and hepatologists for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study.

Sorafenib is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved first-line therapy shown to have survival benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with advanced HCC are often but not exclusively transferred from non-oncologists to oncologists to initiate systemic therapy. The objective of this study was to assess whether sorafenib prescribing by non-oncologists has any impact on utilization, adverse effects, cost or outcome.This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from patients prescribed sorafenib for HCC within Veterans Health Administration hospitals with 100% chart abstraction to confirm HCC diagnosis, identify prescribing provider specialty (oncology versus gastroenterology/hepatology), and obtain data required for cancer staging by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system. The primary outcome was overall survival from the time of sorafenib prescription.A total of 4903 patients who prescribed sorafenib for HCC were identified, for whom 340 patients (6.9%) were prescribed drug by a non-oncologist (Onc). BCLC Stage, age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, and comorbidity indices were similar between patients prescribed sorafenib by oncologists and non-oncologists. Oncologists more often discontinued sorafenib due to progression, whereas non-oncologists were more likely to continue sorafenib until death resulting in greater pill utilization and cost. Overall survival in both unadjusted and multivariable models showed no significant impact of prescriber type on survival (222 vs 217 days, P = .96), confirmed with propensity-matched subcohorts.Similar survival outcomes were observed for patients with HCC prescribed sorafenib by non-oncologists and oncologists, suggesting that non-oncologists with expertise in the management of HCC can safely and effectively administer sorafenib.