The costs of home monitoring by telemedicine versus standard care for inflammatory bowel diseases - a Danish register-based, five-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are few studies on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). We assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of a telemedicine solution (eCare) compared to standard care (sCare), as well as its efficacy according to patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020 we conducted a retrospective, register-based study among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Direct and indirect healthcare costs over a five-year period were obtained from Danish registers and compared to a control group. Costs were estimated on a yearly basis from one year before, until five years after, inclusion in the trial. Patients were divided into cohorts of those not receiving (cohort 1), and those receiving (cohort 2), biologics. RESULTS: We recruited 574 IBD patients. In cohort 1 (61.5%), average total direct costs and total earnings per patient per year were €14,043 and €307,793 in eCare compared to €16,226 and €252,166 in sCare, respectively. In cohort 2 (38.5%), average total direct costs and total earnings were €73,916 and €215,833 in eCare compared to €41,748 and €203,667 in sCare, respectively. PRO showed increasing quality of life and was higher in cohort 1 than cohort 2. Disease activity among CD patients increased after years 3 and 4 in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients not receiving biologics. However, treatment with biologics is more expensive for patients enrolled in eCare. Careful attention to PRO in eCare improves quality of life and could prolong time to relapse.

Long-Term Effects of a Web-Based Low-FODMAP Diet Versus Probiotic Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Including Shotgun Analyses of Microbiota: Randomized, Double-Crossover Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The long-term management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) poses many challenges. In short-term studies, eHealth interventions have been demonstrated to be safe and practical for at-home monitoring of the effects of probiotic treatments and a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs). IBS has been linked to alterations in the microbiota. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a web-based low-FODMAP diet (LFD) intervention and probiotic treatment were equally good at reducing IBS symptoms, and whether the response to treatments could be explained by patients' microbiota. METHODS: Adult IBS patients were enrolled in an open-label, randomized crossover trial (for nonresponders) with 1 year of follow-up using the web application IBS Constant Care (IBS CC). Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic at the Department of Gastroenterology, North Zealand University Hospital, Denmark. Patients received either VSL#3 for 4 weeks (2 × 450 billion colony-forming units per day) or were placed on an LFD for 4 weeks. Patients responding to the LFD were reintroduced to foods high in FODMAPs, and probiotic responders received treatments whenever they experienced a flare-up of symptoms. Treatment response and symptom flare-ups were defined as a reduction or increase, respectively, of at least 50 points on the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS). Web-based ward rounds were performed daily by the study investigator. Fecal microbiota were analyzed by shotgun metagenomic sequencing (at least 10 million 2 × 100 bp paired-end sequencing reads per sample). RESULTS: A total of 34 IBS patients without comorbidities and 6 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Taken from participating subjects, 180 fecal samples were analyzed for their microbiota composition. Out of 21 IBS patients, 12 (57%) responded to the LFD and 8 (38%) completed the reintroduction of FODMAPs. Out of 21 patients, 13 (62%) responded to their first treatment of VSL#3 and 7 (33%) responded to multiple VSL#3 treatments. A median of 3 (IQR 2.25-3.75) probiotic treatments were needed for sustained symptom control. LFD responders were reintroduced to a median of 14.50 (IQR 7.25-21.75) high-FODMAP items. No significant difference in the median reduction of IBS-SSS for LFD versus probiotic responders was observed, where for LFD it was -126.50 (IQR -196.75 to -76.75) and for VSL#3 it was -130.00 (IQR -211.00 to -70.50; P>.99). Responses to either of the two treatments were not able to be predicted using patients' microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based LFD intervention and probiotic treatment were equally efficacious in managing IBS symptoms. The response to treatments could not be explained by the composition of the microbiota. The IBS CC web application was shown to be practical, safe, and useful for clinical decision making in the long-term management of IBS. Although this study was underpowered, findings from this study warrant further research in a larger sample of patients with IBS to confirm these long-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03586622; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03586622.

Costs of electronic health vs. standard care management of inflammatory bowel disease across three years of follow-up-a Danish register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of using eHealth in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management has only been assessed for short follow-up periods. The primary aim was to compare the direct costs of eHealth (cases) relative to standard care (matched controls) for IBD during three years of follow-up. METHODS: The study design was a retrospective, registry-based follow-up study of patients diagnosed with IBD two years prior, and three years subsequent, to their enrolment in eHealth. Cases were matched 1:4 with controls receiving standard care based on diagnosis, gender, biologics (yes/no) and age (+/- 5 years). RESULTS: We identified 116 cases (76 (66%) with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 40 (34%) with Crohn's disease (CD)) and matched them with 433 controls. IBD-related outpatient costs were only significantly higher for cases in the year of their inclusion in eHealth (€2,949 vs. €1,621 per patient, p =.01). Mean IBD-related admission costs tended to fall after enrolment in eHealth, with mean admission costs per patient at year 3 of follow-up of €74 for cases and €383 for controls (p = .02). Linear extrapolation of the reduction in costs beyond year 3 after enrolment in eHealth revealed that eHealth would be cost neutral or saving, relative to standard care, from year 4. CONCLUSION: IBD-related outpatient costs in both groups were similar and only significantly higher for cases in the year of their enrolment in eHealth, with admission costs typically falling after a patient's inclusion in eHealth. Estimation revealed eHealth to be cost neutral or saving from year 4.

[Telemedicine applications for monitoring inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome].

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are chronic relapsing diseases with major impact on the patients' everyday life, and increasing incidences affect the burden on the healthcare system. This review summarises the evidence of telemedicine applications (TA) to patients suffering from IBD and IBS in Denmark and abroad. TA have been shown to: reduce time-to-remission, increase quality of life and medical adherence, and reduce hospital admissions and outpatient visits in adult patients with IBD. In paediatric patients with IBD, TA have been shown to reduce: the need of outpatient visits, the number of school absences, and the symptom scores.

Individualized home-monitoring of disease activity in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease can be recommended in clinical practice: A randomized-clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal way to home-monitor patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for disease progression or relapse remains to be found. AIM: To determine whether an electronic health (eHealth) screening procedure for disease activity in IBD should be implemented in clinical practice, scheduled every third month (3M) or according to patient own decision, on demand (OD). METHODS: Adult IBD patients were consecutively randomized to 1-year open-label eHealth interventions (3M vs OD). Both intervention arms were screening for disease activity, quality of life and fatigue and were measuring medical compliance with the constant care web-application according to the screening interventions OD or 3M. Disease activity was assessed using home measured fecal calprotectin (FC) and a disease activity score. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were randomized (n = 52/50 3M/OD) at baseline, and 88 patients completed the 1-year study (n = 43 3M; n = 45 OD). No difference in the two screening procedures could be found regarding medical compliance (P = 0.58), fatigue (P = 0.86), quality of life (P = 0.17), mean time spent in remission (P > 0.32), overall FC relapse rates (P = 0.49), FC disease courses (P = 0.61), FC time to a severe relapse (P = 0.69) and remission (P = 0.88) during 1 year. Median (interquartile range) numbers of FC home-monitoring test-kits used per patient were significantly different, 3M: 6.0 (5.0-8.0) and OD: 4.0 (2.0-9.0), P = 0.04. CONCLUSION: The two eHealth screening procedures are equally good in capturing a relapse and bringing about remission. However, the OD group used fewer FC home test-kits per patient. Individualized screening procedures can be recommended for adult IBD patients in clinical web-practice.

eHealth: individualization of mesalazine treatment through a self-managed web-based solution in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: To individualize treatment with mesalazine for ulcerative colitis relapses through a self-managed, web-based solution to optimize the short-term disease course. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, web-guided study with 3 months mesalazine therapy among patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. Once a week, patients completed the simple clinical colitis activity index (SCCAI) and registered fecal calprotectin (FC) on the web application: www.meza.constant-care.dk. SCCAI and FC were summed and resulted in a total inflammatory burden score (TIBS). Deep remission was defined as SCCAI ≤1; FC = 0, and TIBS ≤1. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients (62% females; median age 45 yr) were included in the study and allocated 4.8 g mesalazine per day. Of these, 82 (86%) patients were adherent to web therapy, completing 3 months of web-guided mesalazine therapy. Of the 82 adherent patients, 72 (88%) continued mesalazine and 10 (12%) needed rescue therapy. From weeks 0 to 12, patients had experienced a significant reduction in mean SCCAI (4.6 versus 1.6, P < 0.001), mean FC (437 versus 195, P < 0.001), and mean TIBS (6.7 versus 2.4, P < 0.001). Based on TIBS values (≤1), the dose of mesalazine was reduced to 2.4 g in 25% of patients at week 3 in 50% of subjects at week 5 and in 88% of patients at week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Web-guided therapy with mesalazine in mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis helps to individualize the dose and improve adherence to therapy. The study confirms mesalazine efficacy in mild-to-moderate UC, significantly improving TIBS values in majority of the patients.

Performance of three microimmunofluorescence assays for detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae immunoglobulin M, G, and A antibodies.

The microimmunofluorescence (MIF) test is considered the "gold standard" for laboratory diagnosis of acute and chronic Chlamydia pneumoniae infection. The performance of a MIF test based on C. pneumoniae antigen from Washington Research Foundation (WRF) was compared with those of assays from Labsystems (LAB) and MRL Diagnostics (MRL) by investigation of sera from three groups of patients: group I, 83 sera from 28 patients with atypical pneumonia; group II, 37 sera from 16 patients with acute C. pneumoniae or Chlamydia psittaci respiratory tract infection confirmed by PCR or culture; group III, 100 sera from 100 persons enrolled in the Copenhagen City Heart Study. The accordance among the results of the WRF assay and the two commercial assays was excellent for the immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody detection rate (98%). The accordance in detection rates for IgG and IgA antibodies in sera from patients with acute infections was acceptable (87 and 88%), and in sera from group III, it was excellent (95 and 97%). The determinations of endpoint titers were reproducible with <1 dilution step difference for all three methods, except that the mean IgM antibody titer found by the LAB assay was almost 2 dilution steps higher than that found by the other two methods. Although the three assays use different C. pneumoniae strains as antigens, the detection rates and IgG and IgA endpoint titers were similar. The difference in endpoint titers of IgM antibodies is of no major concern, as the diagnosis of acute C. pneumoniae infection rests on the presence of IgM antibodies, not on their level.