The Burden of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Patient-Reported Qualitative Analysis and Development of a Conceptual Model

Background The aim of this study was to describe the impacts of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the patients’ perspective, and to inform the development of a conceptual model. Methods Focus groups and one-on-one interviews were undertaken in adult patients with IBD. Transcripts from the focus groups and interviews were analyzed to identify themes and links between themes, assisted by qualitative data software MaxQDA. Themes from the qualitative research were supplemented with those reported in the literature and concepts included in IBD-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Results Twenty-seven patients participated. Key physical symptoms included pain, bowel-related symptoms such as frequency, urgency, incontinence, diarrhea, passing blood, and systemic symptoms such as weight loss and fatigue. Participants described continuing and variable symptom experiences. IBD symptoms caused immediate disruption of activities but also had ongoing impacts on daily activities, including dietary restrictions, lifestyle changes, and maintaining close proximity to a toilet. More distal impacts included interference with work, school, parenting, social and leisure activities, relationships, and psychological well-being. The inconvenience of rectal medications, refrigerated biologics, and medication refills emerged as novel burdens not identified in existing PRO measures. Conclusions IBD symptoms cause immediate disruption in activities, but patients may continue to experience some symptoms on a chronic basis. The conceptual model presented here may be useful for identifying target concepts for measurement in future studies in IBD

Cost effectiveness of ulcerative colitis treatment in Germany: a comparison of two oral formulations of mesalazine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) can place a substantial financial burden on healthcare systems. The anti-inflammatory compound 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; mesalazine) is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with UC. In this analysis, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of two oral formulations of 5-ASA (Mezavant^®and Asacol^®) is examined in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate, active UC in Germany.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Markov cohort model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of Mezavant compared with Asacol over a 5-year period in the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). Drug pricing details for 2009 were applied throughout the model, and overall resource use was determined and also fitted to 2009 from published results of a large cross sectional study of German SHI patients. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was the primary endpoint for this study. Remission rates were obtained using data from a randomised, phase III trial of Mezavant with an active Asacol reference arm and a long-term, open label, safety and tolerability trial of Mezavant. Uncertainty in the study model was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses applying a Monte Carlo simulation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over a 5-year period, healthcare costs for patients receiving Mezavant were 624 Euro lower than for patients receiving Asacol. Additionally, patients receiving Mezavant gained 0.011 QALYs or 18 more days in remission compared with Asacol. One-way sensitivity analyses suggest that these results are driven by both differences in the acquisition cost between mesalazine formulations and differences in treatment efficacy. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses suggest a probability of 76% for cost savings and higher QALYs with Mezavant compared with Asacol. If adherence and its influence on the remission rates and the risk of developing colorectal cancer were included in the model, the results might have even been more favorable to Mezavant due to its once daily dosing regimen.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This model suggests that patients treated with Mezavant may achieve increased time in remission and higher QALYs, with lower direct costs to the SHI when compared with Asacol. Mezavant may therefore be a suitable first-line option for the induction and maintenance of remission in UC.</p

Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis : a discrete-choice experiment

Background: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) frequently require long-term therapy to prevent relapse. Treatments such as 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA [mesalazine]) are efficacious and well tolerated, but adherence to treatment is often poor. Objective: This discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to estimate differences in patient preferences for 5-ASA treatment in mild-to-moderate UC based on levels of self-reported adherence. Inclusion of patients residing in the US, UK, Germany, and Canada allowed for assessment of possible cultural differences in patient preferences. Methods: DCE attributes were determined through literature review, clinician consultation, and patient interviews. Six treatment attributes were identified: ease of swallowing, time of day, quantity, extent of flare resolution, likelihood of flare occurrence, and cost. A total of 400 patients in four countries completed the DCE and adherence (Modified Morisky Scale) surveys. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to estimate patient preference and willingness to pay (WTP) by levels of self-reported adherence and country of residence. Results: All attributes had expected polarity and were significant predictors of patient preference. Self-reported 'good' versus 'poor' adherers significantly preferred symptom control (p = 0.0108) and mucosal healing (p = 0.0190) attributes. All patients stated preference for symptom control/mucosal healing and flare risk attributes; the latter attribute was significantly preferred across all countries. Country differences in patient preference for convenience versus clinical attributes were found. Overall, patients were willing to pay (sic)29.24 ($US46.27) per month for symptom control and mucosal healing, and an additional (sic)78.81 ($US124.70) per month for reduction in flare risk to 10% per year (WTP costs were equalized between each country using the published 2008 purchasing power parity). Those with flares in the past year significantly preferred avoiding future flares (p < 0.0001) versus other attributes, as well as lower risk of flares (10%, likelihood ratio: 0.64-0.70). Conclusions: Findings indicate that self-reported adherers to UC therapy have a stronger preference for clinical benefits over other treatment attributes, suggesting that positive patient assessment of effectiveness may influence adherence. Ongoing clinician assessment of patient preferences for treatment attributes, as well as education on the importance of adherence, may help improve treatment outcomes in UC