Patients’ Perspectives, Experiences, and Concerns With Perianal Fistulae:Insights From Online Targeted-Disease Forums

Background: Perianal fistulae can undermine physical, emotional, and social well-being in patients with Crohn’s disease and are challenging to manage. Social media offers a rich opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of perianal fistulae on patients’ daily lives outside of controlled environments. In this study, we conducted social media analytics to examine patients’ experiences with perianal fistulae and assessed the impact of perianal fistulae on patients’ behavior and overall well-being. Methods: We used a mixed-method approach to examine 119 986 publicly available posts collected from 10 Crohn’s disease forums in the United States between January 01, 2010 and January 01, 2020. Discussions related to Crohn’s perianal fistulae were retrieved. We randomly selected 700 posts and qualitatively analyzed them using an inductive thematic approach. We then applied a latent Dirichlet allocation probabilistic topic model to explore themes in an unsupervised manner on the collection of 119 986 posts. Results: In the qualitative analysis, 5 major themes were identified: (1) burden of perianal fistula; (2) challenges associated with treatment; (3) online information seeking and sharing; (4) patient experiences with treatments; and (5) patients’ apprehension about treatments. In the quantitative analysis, the percentages of posts related to the major themes were (1) 20%, (2) 29%, (3) 66%, and (4) 28%, while the topic model did not identify theme 5. Conclusions: Social media reveals a dynamic range of themes governing patients’ perspectives and experiences with Crohn’s perianal fistulae. In addition to the biopsychosocial burden, patients frequently express dissatisfaction with current treatments and often struggle to navigate among available management options.</p

Disease and treatment patterns among patients with pouch-related conditions in a cohort of large tertiary care inflammatory bowel disease centers in the United States

BACKGROUND: Gaps exist in our understanding of the clinical course of pouch-related disorders. METHODS: We evaluated baseline disease activity and longitudinal treatment patterns among patients with inflammatory conditions of the pouch. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), 94 (20%) had acute pouchitis, 96 (21%) had chronic pouchitis, and 192 (41%) had Crohn disease of the pouch. Following an IPAA, 38% of patients were treated with a biologic and 11% underwent inflammatory bowel disease- or bowel-related surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns after IPAA indicate that pouch-related disorders have a significant impact on individual patients and the healthcare system

Comparative Persistence of Non-tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) vs. TNF Antagonists for Post-operative Prophylaxis in Crohns Disease (CD).

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and effectiveness of available biologics for post-operative prophylaxis in Crohns disease (CD) is uncertain. Drug persistence may serve as a real-world proxy for tolerability and effectiveness. We evaluated the comparative persistence of non-TNF and TNF antagonists for post-operative prophylaxis and their comparative effectiveness for preventing early endoscopic post-operative recurrence (POR). METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of surgically naïve CD subjects undergoing ileocecal or small bowel resection between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2021 and prescribed a biologic for post-operative prophylaxis. We compared the risk of prophylaxis failure (requiring recurrent surgery or discontinuation of therapy due to persistent POR despite optimized drug level or dose escalation, immunogenicity, and/or adverse event) and early endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts score&nbsp;≥&nbsp;i2 within 15&nbsp;months postoperatively) between non-TNF and TNF antagonist prophylaxis using Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression, respectively, adjusting for demographic and disease characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 291 subjects (81% TNF antagonists). After multivariable adjustment, non-TNF antagonist prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of prophylaxis failure than TNF antagonists (hazard ratio 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.13-0.53]). Prophylaxis with non-TNF and TNF antagonists had similar risk of early endoscopic POR (odds ratio 0.66; 95% CI [0.32-1.36]). Stratifying the non-TNF antagonists by anti-integrin and anti-IL12/23 yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of surgically naïve CD subjects prescribed a biologic for post-operative prophylaxis, non-TNF antagonists had greater persistence than TNF antagonists with similar risk for early endoscopic POR. If confirmed by large, prospective studies, these findings can inform post-operative management strategies in CD