IBDoc Canadian User Performance Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a stool biomarker that has been shown to be sensitive and specific for mucosal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The test is limited by the requirement for patients to collect and return stool samples. A home-based FC test may improve test adherence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usability of the IBDoc, a home-based FC measuring test, and to determine the accuracy of results compared with traditional lab-based ELISA values. METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled from 3 tertiary sites across Canada between May and August 2017. Patients completed a questionnaire establishing ease-of-use of the IBDoc. Patients completed a FC measurement using the IBDoc, and results were compared with an ELISA-determined FC measurement on the same stool sample. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants were enrolled in the study (29 CD, 32 UC). Seventy-nine percent of patients (48 of 61) agreed that the IBDoc was easy to use, with 85% (52 of 61) of patients strongly agreeing that they were willing use the home kit in the future. The IBDoc and ELISA measurement comparison showed an 88% agreement across all values. There were no false positives or negatives using qualitative comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The home-based IBDoc FC measuring test is acceptable to patients and correlates extremely well with the standard ELISA-determined FC value. The IBDoc enables clinicians to more easily adopt a treat-to-target approach, improve long-term outcomes, and patients' quality of life with IBD. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03408249.

Cost-effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in Quebec using a patient level state transition microsimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct cost-effectiveness analyses comparing the addition of golimumab to the standard of care (SoC) for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) who are refractory to conventional therapies in Quebec (Canada). METHODS: An individual patient state transition microsimulation model was developed to project health outcomes and costs over 10 years, using a payer perspective. The incremental benefit estimates for golimumab were driven by induction response and risk of a flare. Flare risks post-induction were derived for golimumab from the PURSUIT maintenance trial and extension study, while those for SoC were derived from the placebo arms of the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials (ACT) 1 and 2. Other inputs were derived from multiple sources, including retrospective claims analyses and literature. Costs are reported in 2014 Canadian dollars. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Compared with SoC, golimumab was projected to increase the time spent in mild disease or remission states, decrease flare rates, and increase QALYs. These gains were achieved with higher direct medical costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for golimumab vs SoC was $63,487 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The long-term flare projections for SoC were based on the data available from the ACT 1 and 2 placebo arms, as data were not available from the PURSUIT maintenance or extension trial. Additionally, the study was limited to only SoC and golimumab, due to the availability of individual patient data to analyze. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis concluded that treatment with golimumab is likely more cost-effective vs SoC when considering cost-effectiveness acceptability thresholds from $50,000-$100,000 per QALY.

Increased prevalence of Methanosphaera stadtmanae in inflammatory bowel diseases.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiota is associated with the modulation of mucosal immunity and the etiology of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Previous studies focused on the impact of bacterial species on IBD but seldom suspected archaea, which can be a major constituent of intestinal microbiota, to be implicated in the diseases. Recent evidence supports that two main archaeal species found in the digestive system of humans, Methanobrevibacter smithii (MBS) and Methanosphaera stadtmanae (MSS) can have differential immunogenic properties in lungs of mice; with MSS but not MBS being a strong inducer of the inflammatory response. We thus aimed at documenting the immunogenic potential of MBS and MSS in humans and to explore their association with IBD. METHODS: To validate the immunogenicity of MBS and MSS in humans, peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy subjects were stimulated with these two microorganisms and the production of inflammatory cytokine TNF was measured by ELISA. To verify MBS and MSS prevalence in IBD, stool samples from 29 healthy control subjects and 29 patients suffering from IBD were collected for DNA extraction. Plasma was also collected from these subjects to measure antigen-specific IgGs by ELISA. Quantitative PCR was used for bacteria, methanogens, MBS and MSS quantification. RESULTS: Mononuclear cells stimulated with MSS produced higher concentrations of TNF (39.5 ng/ml) compared to MBS stimulation (9.1 ng/ml). Bacterial concentrations and frequency of MBS-containing stools were similar in both groups. However, the number of stool samples positive for the inflammatory archaea MSS was higher in patients than in controls (47% vs 20%). Importantly, only IBD patients developed a significant anti-MSS IgG response. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of MSS is increased in IBD patients and is associated with an antigen-specific IgG response.

Methotrexate in combination with infliximab is no more effective than infliximab alone in patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Methotrexate and infliximab are effective therapies for Crohn's disease (CD). In the combination of maintenance methotrexate-infliximab trial, we evaluated the potential superiority of combination therapy over infliximab alone. METHODS: In a 50-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we compared methotrexate and infliximab with infliximab alone in 126 patients with CD who had initiated prednisone induction therapy (15-40 mg/day) within the preceding 6 weeks. Patients were assigned randomly to groups given methotrexate at an initial weekly dose of 10 mg, escalating to 25 mg/week (n = 63), or placebo (n = 63). Both groups received infliximab (5 mg/kg of body weight) at weeks 1, 3, 7, and 14, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Prednisone was tapered, beginning at week 1, and discontinued no later than week 14. The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, defined as a lack of prednisone-free remission (CD Activity Index, <150) at week 14 or failure to maintain remission through week 50. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar between groups. By week 50, the actuarial rate of treatment failure was 30.6% in the combination therapy group compared with 29.8% in the infliximab monotherapy group (P = .63; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.17). Prespecified subgroup analyses failed to show a benefit in patients with short disease duration or an increased level of C-reactive protein. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in secondary outcomes. Combination therapy was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of infliximab and methotrexate, although safe, was no more effective than infliximab alone in patients with CD receiving treatment with prednisone. ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT00132899.