Abstract
Background
The multiplication of therapeutic options with close efficacy and safety, leads to consider acceptability of treatment regimen as a key point for therapeutic decision in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to compare acceptability of IBD treatment regimen and to identify its associated factors.
Methods
From a nationwide prospective study conducted in 24 public or private centres, IBD patients were consecutively included for 6 weeks. A dedicated questionnaire was developed, tested and validated for the study. It was administered to each included patient and his/her related physician. Acceptability was graded with an acceptability numerical scale (ANS) from 0 (absolutely not acceptable) to 10 (totally acceptable).
Results
Overall, 1850 patients were included (65.9% with Crohn’s disease (CD), mean age = 41.0 ± 14.7, 22.2% experiencing IBD flare at inclusion). The medications at inclusion were none in 9.0%, oral (PO) monotherapy in 17.3%, subcutaneous (SC) injections in 29.2% and intra-venous (IV) infusions in 44.5% of the patients. The ANS were 8.68 ± 2.52 for PO, 7.67 ± 2.94 for SC and 6.79 ± 3.31 for IV (p < 0.001 for each comparison). The patients reported PO, SC and IV as their first choice in 65.8%, 21.4% and 12.8%, respectively. The reasons for reduced acceptability were the need to come to the hospital (63.0%) for IV infusion, none for SC injections and the fear to forget to take pills (30.5%), the number of daily dose (28.4%) and daily medication as a reminder of disease every day (24.8%) for PO therapy. In multivariable analyses, the following factors were associated with a better acceptability of IV infusion (current IBD flare: p = 0.003 and current IV therapy for IBD: p < 0.001), SC injections (Private practice: p = 0.006 and current SC injections for IBD: p < 0.001) and PO medication (male gender: p = 0.018, higher studies level: p < 0,001 and current oral medication: p = 0.002). The mean ANS for all IBD treatment regimen were compared in the 1850 patients (Figure 1).
No difference was observed between CD and UC. In biologics-naïve patients (n = 315), the treatment regimens were ranked in the following order: PO once daily (8.8 ± 2.2), SC/12 weeks (week) (7.9 ± 3.0), SC/8 week and PO twice daily (7.2 ± 3.2 et 6.9 ± 3.4; ns), SC/4 week (6.2 ± 3.4), SC/2 week et IV/8 week (5.1 ± 3.4 and 5.0 ± 3.5; ns)(p < 0.001 except if ns was mentioned). For the patients, the acceptable loss of efficacy to receive a more convenient medication was 5.2% (non-inferiority trial limit).
Conclusion
While PO administration was preferred by most of IBD patients, the acceptability of treatment regimen is highly impacted by the interval between two doses and the previous medications. Our data could be helpful to guide therapeutic decision in daily practice in IBD.
P736 Point-of-care infliximab quantification in inflammatory bowel disease in daily practice
