RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Frequently, existing therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not achieve complete remission of the disease and are commonly associated with adverse effects. Therefore, patients regularly turn to complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). International CAM use in IBD patients ranges from 21% to 60%. There are no reported statistics of CAM use in the Mexican population who suffer IBD. This study´s objective was to determine the prevalence and characterize the use of CAM in our IBD population. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study in patients diagnosed with IBD belonging to our Institution's IBD center. The results were analyzed with measures of relative frequency, central tendency, and dispersion. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients with IBD (78% ulcerative colitis and 22% Crohn's disease) were included, 38.5% were exposed to CAM. A total of 27% used it as an aid in their IBD treatment. The remaining 11.5% used it for other reasons. Patients exposed to CAM for IBD averaged 51 ± 19 years, 64% were female and 71% had at least an undergraduate degree. The most used CAMs were acupuncture (42.8%), herbal (35.7%) and homeopathy (35.7%). Half of the patients used concomitantly two or more modalities, and 91.6% of the patients knew their diagnosis at the time that CAM was being used. The median exposure time to CAM was 4.5 ± 40.7 months. The main reasons for the use of CAM in IBD patients was as a complementary therapy in 58.3%, as the perception of lack of improvement was present in 33.3% of patients. Twenty-five percent of patients used CAM after a healthcare professional recommended it. CAM was used in 83.2% of patients with conventional treatment (Mesalamine: 74.6%, Mesalamine + Azathioprine: 8.3%) and only 16.5% were on biological therapy. A total of 58.3% CAM users perceived improvement in their symptoms. Currently 25% still use some modality of CAM. No statistically significant differences were found in sociodemographic variables and clinical outcomes when comparing the IBD group exposed to CAM vs the unexposed group. CONCLUSION: Exposure to CAM for IBD treatment had a prevalence of 27%. The main CAM modalities for IBD patients were acupuncture, herbal, and homeopathy. No relationship was demonstrated between the use of CAM in IBD patients and their clinical outcomes.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects an estimated 1.6 million people in the United States with at least 70,000 new cases per year. In the last 15 years an increase in frequency of IBD cases from 0.30 cases per 100,000 person-years to 1.83 cases per 100,000 person-years has been reported in Mexico. Variables such as early hospitalization at diagnosis, low hemoglobin levels, high values of C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin concentration and absence of mucosal healing during evolution define the prognosis of these patients. However, the distance a patient must travel in order to reach a specialized treatment center can become an impediment for a correct diagnosis and treatment, severely impacting the clinical outcome of such patients. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study. Objective: In patients with IBD, determine the impact of distance between the residence and specialized treatment center on the general clinical outcome. Variables analyzed: sex, age, disease duration, average travel time, distance in kilometers between place of residence and specialized treatment center, Crohn´s Disease (CD) or Ulcerative Colitis (UC), and their respective severity classification scores, as well as number of hospital readmissions per year. The results were evaluated with ANOVA tests, univariate analysis had a 95% confidence index and a significant "p" determined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: The study included 66 patients (45 UC and 21 CD). Mean age 51.15± 17.5 years. The distance between residence and hospital was calculated and classified into 3 quartiles based on proximity: 750km (quartile 3). There was a higher risk among patients in the most distant quartile for the use of biological therapy (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 0.23- 20.55) and surgery (OR, 2.76, 95% CI 0.49- 15.48). We observed a clear relationship between the number of hospital readmission and the distance quartiles with a p = 0.0047. CONCLUSION: We observed an impact between the distance of residence and specialized treatment center over the patient's clinical outcome. More readmissions, greater disease activity scores, more use of biological therapy and surgery were observed in patients who had to travel more than 750km from their home to their specialized treatment center compared to the other travel quartiles, this with a p = 0.0047.