Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit: automated extraction of colonoscopy data for quality assessment and improvement

Background and Aims: The importance of having quality assessment, assurance, and improvement tools in health care is increasingly recognized. However, the additional associated administration burden progressively interferes with the structural implementation and adoption of such tools, especially when it concerns high-volume procedures such as colonoscopies. The development of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA), a registry with automated extraction of colonoscopy quality data, and its first results are described. Methods: In close cooperation with commercial endoscopy reporting systems and a national histopathology database, healthcare professionals performing colonoscopies initiated a quality registry that extracts data from its core hospital resource or histology database without manual interference of the healthcare providers. Data extracted consisted of patient age, gender, indication of the colonoscopy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Boston Bowel Preparation Score, and cecal intubation; for the colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test in the colorectal cancer screening program, other data were polyp detection rate, which was available for all 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers, and adenoma detection rate, which was available for 26 hospitals or endoscopy centers. Results: Between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019, 48 hospitals or endoscopy centers voluntarily participated in the DGEA, and 275,017 unique patients with 313,511 colonoscopies were registered. Overall missing values were limited to <1%. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that it is feasible to deploy a quality registry collecting uniform data without additional administration burden for healthcare professionals

Cost-effectiveness analysis of increased adalimumab dose intervals in Crohn's disease patients in stable remission:The Randomized Controlled LADI Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in stable clinical and biochemical remission. DESIGN: We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the two-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) at relevant willingness to accept (WTA) levels. RESULTS: We randomised 174 patients to the intervention (n=113) and control (n=61) groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: -0.017, 95% confidence interval [-0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (-€943, [-2,226; €1,367] over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (-€2,545, [-€2,780; -€2,192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1,058]) were higher. Cost-utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 ([-€2,099; €2,050]), €69 [-€2,908; €1,965], and -€455 [-€4,096; €1,984] at WTA levels of €20,000; €50,000; and €80,000. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53,960 per QALY. Above €53,960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: When the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53,960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission

Increased versus conventional adalimumab dose interval for patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission (LADI): a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Background: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of increased adalimumab dose intervals versus conventional dosing in patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission. Methods: The LADI study was a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial, done in six academic hospitals and 14 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Adults (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with luminal Crohn's disease (with or without concomitant perianal disease) were eligible when in steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (defined as Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] score <5, faecal calprotectin <150 μg/g, and C-reactive protein <10 mg/L) for at least 9 months on a stable dose of 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the intervention group or control group by the coordinating investigator using a secure web-based system with variable block randomisation (block sizes of 6, 9, and 12). Randomisation was stratified on concomitant use of thiopurines and methotrexate. Patients and health-care providers were not masked to group assignment. Patients allocated to the intervention group increased adalimumab dose intervals to 40 mg every 3 weeks at baseline and further to every 4 weeks if they remained in clinical and biochemical remission at week 24. Patients in the control group continued their 2-weekly dose interval. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of persistent flares at week 48 defined as the presence of at least two of the following criteria: HBI score of 5 or more, C-reactive protein 10 mg/L or more, and faecal calprotectin more than 250 μg/g for more than 8 weeks and a concurrent decrease in the adalimumab dose interval or start of escape medication. The non-inferiority margin was 15% on a risk difference scale. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03172377, and is not recruiting. Findings: Between May 3, 2017, and July 6, 2020, 174 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=113) or the control group (n=61). Four patients from the intervention group and one patient from the control group were excluded from the analysis for not meeting inclusion criteria. 85 (50%) of 169 participants were female and 84 (50%) were male. At week 48, the cumulative incidence of persistent flares in the intervention group (three [3%] of 109) was non-inferior compared with the control group (zero; pooled adjusted risk difference 1·86% [90% CI –0·35 to 4·07). Seven serious adverse events occurred, all in the intervention group, of which two (both patients with intestinal obstruction) were possibly related to the intervention. Per 100 person-years, 168·35 total adverse events, 59·99 infection-related adverse events, and 42·57 gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in the intervention group versus 134·67, 75·03, and 5·77 in the control group, respectively. Interpretation: The individual benefit of increasing adalimumab dose intervals versus the risk of disease recurrence is a trade-off that should take patient preferences regarding medication and the risk of a flare into account. Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development