Data linkage can reduce the burden and increase the opportunities in the implementation of Value-Based Health Care policy: a study in patients with ulcerative colitis (PROUD-UC Study)

Introduction Healthcare systems face rising demand and unsustainable cost pressures. In response, health policymakers are adopting Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), targeting available resources to achieve the best possible patient outcomes at the lowest possible cost and actively disinvesting in care of low-value. This requires the evaluation of longitudinal clinical and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at an individual-level and population-scale, which can create significant data challenges. Achieving this through routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data-linkage could facilitate the implementation of VBHC without an unacceptable data burden on patients or health systems and release time for higher-value activities. Objectives Our study tested the ability to report an international, patient-centred outcome dataset (ICHOM-IBD) using only anonymised individual-level population-scale linked electronic health record (EHR) data sources, including clinical and patient-reported outcomes, in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC), receiving biopharmaceutical therapies ("biologics") in a single, publicly funded, healthcare system. Results We identified a cohort of 17,632 patients with UC in Wales and a cohort from two Health Boards of 447 patients with UC receiving biologics. 112 of these patients had completed 866 condition-specific PROMs during their biologics treatment. 44 out of 59 (74.6%) items in the ICHOM-IBD could be derived from routinely collected data of which a primary care source was essential for eight items and desirable for 21. Conclusions We demonstrated that it is possible to report most but not all the ICHOM-IBD outcomes using routinely collected data from multiple sources without additional system burden, potentially supporting Value-Based Health Care implementation with population data science. As digital collection of PROMs and use of condition-specific registries grow, greater utility of this approach can be anticipated. We have identified that the availability of longitudinal primary and secondary care data linked with PROMs is essential for this to be possible

The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials

Background In a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials. Methods Two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses. Results In the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified. Conclusion Deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required. Trial registration The CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656. Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820. Registered on 16 May 2006

British Society of Gastroenterology guidance for management of inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting unprecedented pressures on healthcare systems globally. Early insights have been made possible by rapid sharing of data from China and Italy. In the UK, we have rapidly mobilised inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centres in order that preparations can be made to protect our patients and the clinical services they rely on. This is a novel coronavirus; much is unknown as to how it will affect people with IBD. We also lack information about the impact of different immunosuppressive medications. To address this uncertainty, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) COVID-19 IBD Working Group has used the best available data and expert opinion to generate a risk grid that groups patients into highest, moderate and lowest risk categories. This grid allows patients to be instructed to follow the UK government's advice for shielding, stringent and standard advice regarding social distancing, respectively. Further considerations are given to service provision, medical and surgical therapy, endoscopy, imaging and clinical trials

Inflammatory bowel disease patient‐reported quality assessment should drive service improvement: A national survey of UK IBD units and patients

© 2022 The Authors. Published by Wiley. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17042Background & Aims Healthcare service provision in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is often designed to meet targets set by healthcare providers rather than those of patients. It is unclear whether this meets the needs of patients, as assessed by patients themselves. This nationwide study assessed patients' experience of IBD and the healthcare they received, aiming to identify factors in IBD healthcare provision associated with perceived high-quality care. Methods Using the 2019 IBD Standards as a framework, a national benchmarking tool for quality assessment in IBD was developed by IBD UK, comprising a Patient Survey and Service Self-Assessment. Results In all, 134 IBD services and 9757 patients responded. Perceived quality of care was lowest in young adults then increased with age, was higher in males and those >2 years since diagnosis. No hospital services met all the National IBD Standards for recommended workforce numbers. Key metrics associated with patient-reported high-quality care were as follows: identification as a tertiary centre, patient information availability, shared decision-making, rapid response to contact for advice, access to urgent review, joint medical/surgical clinics and access to research (all p < 0.001). Higher numbers of IBD nurse specialists in a service was strongly associated with patients receiving regular reviews and having confidence in self-management and reporting high-quality care. Conclusions This extensive patient and healthcare provider survey emphasises the importance of aspects of care less often measured by clinicians, such as communication, shared decision-making and provision of information, and demonstrates that IBD nurse specialists are crucial to meeting the needs of people living with IBD.This work was supported by Crohn's & Colitis UK.Published onlin

Non-invasive diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as13C or14C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities. MAIN RESULTS: We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-13C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-14C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-13C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-13C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions

Electronic monitoring of medication adherence in a 1-year clinical study of 2 dosing regimens of mesalazine for adults in remission with ulcerative colitis

Background: Adherence to medication is an issue of great importance for patients with ulcerative colitis. Once daily mesalazine seems to be no worse than divided doses in preventing relapse in remitting patients. Although this has been attributed to improved adherence, detailed measures of adherence have been lacking from previous studies. Methods: A 1-year substudy was conducted alongside a trial that compared 2 different dosing regimens (once daily versus three times daily) of mesalazine for patients in remission with ulcerative colitis. Participants in the substudy had their adherence monitored electronically using the medication event monitoring system, self-report, and tablet counts. We compared measures, determined factors associated with adherence and associations between adherence and relapse, modeled adherence over time, and explored behavioral aspects. Results: We included 58 participants. Adherence was high across all measures (89.3% self-report, 96.7% tablet counts, and 89.2% medication event monitoring system). Agreement between the measures was poor at times. Adherence according to the medication event monitoring system best distinguished between the participants who relapsed (71.4%) and those who remained in remission (93.4%), although this difference was not statistically discernible at the 5% level. Adherence deteriorated over the study period, with three times daily participants generally less adherent than once-daily participants (odds ratio, 0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.08). Adherence was higher on weekdays (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.65) and around clinic visit dates (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.72). Conclusions: Simple dosing regimens are preferable to multiple daily dosing regimens. Electronic monitoring of adherence should be used more often in clinical studies. Self-reported adherence and tablet counts may underestimate adherence. Adherence declined over time, and adherence was generally lower and more varied for those allocated to the three times daily regimen