Summary Background Knowledge of the cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is essential for health policy makers worldwide. Aim To assess the cost of illness of IBD from the societal perspective taking into account time trends and geographical differences. Methods A systematic review of all population‐based studies on cost of illness of IBD published in Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Methodology of included studies was assessed and costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars. Results Study methodologies differed considerably, with large differences in perspective, valuation method and population. For prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) cases in the last ten years annual healthcare costs were in Asia $4417 (range $1230‐$31 161); Europe $12 439 ($7694‐$15 807) and North America $17 495 ($14 454‐$20 535). For ulcerative colitis (UC), these were $1606 ($309‐$14 572), $7224 ($3228‐$9779) and $13 559 ($13 559‐$13 559). The main cost driver was medication, the cost of which increased considerably between 1985 and 2018, while outpatient and inpatient costs remained stable. IBD had a negative impact on work productivity. Annual costs of absenteeism for CD and UC were in Asia (with presenteeism) $5638 ($5638‐$5638) and $4828 ($4828‐$4828); Europe $2660 ($641‐$5277) and $2394 ($651‐$5992); North America $752 ($307‐$1303) and $1443 ($85‐$2350). Conclusion IBD societal cost of illness is increasing, driven by growing costs of medication, and varies considerably between continents. While biologic therapy was expected to decrease inpatient costs by reducing hospitalisations and surgery, these costs have not declined.

In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is unclear how asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients who present with acute severe ulcerative colitis (UC) can be treated effectively and safely. Standard treatment regimens consist of steroids, immunomodulatory drugs, and biological therapies, but therapeutic decision-making becomes challenging as there are uncertainties about how to deal with these drugs in patients with COVID-19 and active UC. Importantly, guidelines for this particular group of patients with UC are still lacking. To inform therapeutic decision-making, we describe three consecutive cases of patients with active UC and COVID-19 and discuss their treatments based on theoretical knowledge, currently available evidence and clinical observations. Three patients were identified through our national inflammatory bowel disease network [Initiative on Crohn’s and Colitis (ICC)] for whom diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2-infection was established by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing in nasopharynx, stools, and/or biopsies. Acute severe UC was diagnosed by clinical parameters, endoscopy, and histopathology. Clinical guidelines for SARS-CoV-2-negative patients advocate the use of steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α)-antagonists as induction therapy, and experiences from the current three cases show that steroids and TNF-α-antagonists could also be used in patients with COVID-19. This could potentially be followed by TNF-α-antagonists, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab as maintenance therapy in these patients. Future research is warranted to investigate if, and which, immunomodulatory drugs should be used for COVID-19 patients that present with active UC. To answer this question, it is of utmost importance that future cases of patients with UC and COVID-19 are documented carefully in international registries, such as the SECURE-IBD registry.

IntroductionBiologics are effective for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, unwarranted variation in processes and outcomes has been reported in the treatment of IBD. A care pathway for the treatment of IBD has the potential to reduce practice variation and improve outcomes. This study aims to compare the effect of a uniform care pathway for the treatment of patients with IBD with biologics to the current situation.Methods and analysisIBD Value is a longitudinal multicentre non-randomised parallel cluster trial with a baseline period. The study takes place in eight centres in the Netherlands. The baseline period will run for 12 months, after which the care pathway will be implemented in 6 of the 8 participating hospitals during the implementation phase of 3 months. Hereafter, the effect of the care pathway will be assessed for 12 months. Total study period is 27 months. The primary outcome is the effect of the care pathway on disease control (IBD-Control questionnaire). Secondary outcomes are the effect of the care pathway on the other outcomes of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement IBD standard set, health-related generic quality of life, patient experiences and degree of variation; cost effectiveness of the care pathway; and the variation between hospitals in the aforementioned outcomes in the baseline period. Outcomes will be measured every 6 months. The study started on 1 December 2020 and a minimum of 200 patients will be included.Ethics and disseminationThe study was deemed not to be subject to Dutch law (WMO; Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act) by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands (registration number: MEC-2020–075) and a waiver was provided. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences.Trial registration numberNL8276.

No abstract

Background Despite enormous clinical improvements, due to better management strategies and the availability of biologicals, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) still have a significant impact on patients’ lives. To further reduce disease burden, provider- as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be taken into account during treatment and follow-up. Web-based collection of these outcomes generates valuable repeated measurements, which could be used (1) in daily clinical practice for patient-centered care, including shared decision-making; (2) for research purposes; and (3) as an essential step toward the implementation of value-based health care (VBHC). Our ultimate goal is that our health care delivery system is completely aligned with the principles of VBHC. For aforementioned reasons, we implemented the IMID registry. Objective The IMID registry is a digital system for routine outcome measurement that mainly includes PROs to improve care for patients with IMIDs. Methods The IMID registry is a longitudinal observational prospective cohort study within the departments of rheumatology, gastroenterology, dermatology, immunology, clinical pharmacy, and outpatient pharmacy of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands. Patients with the following diseases are eligible for inclusion: inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, uveitis, Behçet disease, sarcoidosis, and systemic vasculitis. Generic and disease-specific (patient-reported) outcomes, including adherence to medication, side effects, quality of life, work productivity, disease damage, and activity, are collected from patients and providers at fixed intervals before and during outpatient clinic visits. Data are collected and visualized through a data capture system, which is linked directly to the patients’ electronic health record, which not only facilitates a more holistic care approach, but also helps with shared decision-making. Results The IMID registry is an ongoing cohort with no end date. Inclusion started in April 2018. From start until September 2022, a total of 1417 patients have been included from the participating departments. The mean age at inclusion was 46 (SD 16) years, and 56% of the patient population is female. The average percentage of filled out questionnaires at baseline is 84%, which drops to 72% after 1 year of follow-up. This decline may be due to the fact that the outcomes are not always discussed during the outpatient clinic visit or because the questionnaires were sometimes forgotten to set out. The registry is also used for research purposes and 92% of the patients with IMIDs gave informed consent to use their data for that. Conclusions The IMID registry is a web-based digital system that collects provider- and PROs. The collected outcomes are used to improve care for the individual patient with an IMID and facilitate shared decision-making, and they are also used for research purposes. The measurement of these outcomes is an essential step toward the implementation of VBHC. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/43230

BACKGROUND Despite enormous clinical improvements, due to better management strategies and the availability of biologicals, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) still have a significant impact on patients’ lives. To further reduce disease burden, provider- as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be taken into account during treatment and follow-up. Web-based collection of these outcomes generates valuable repeated measurements, which could be used (1) in daily clinical practice for patient-centered care, including shared decision-making; (2) for research purposes; and (3) as an essential step toward the implementation of value-based health care (VBHC). Our ultimate goal is that our health care delivery system is completely aligned with the principles of VBHC. For aforementioned reasons, we implemented the IMID registry. OBJECTIVE The IMID registry is a digital system for routine outcome measurement that mainly includes PROs to improve care for patients with IMIDs. METHODS The IMID registry is a longitudinal observational prospective cohort study within the departments of rheumatology, gastroenterology, dermatology, immunology, clinical pharmacy, and outpatient pharmacy of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands. Patients with the following diseases are eligible for inclusion: inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, uveitis, Behçet disease, sarcoidosis, and systemic vasculitis. Generic and disease-specific (patient-reported) outcomes, including adherence to medication, side effects, quality of life, work productivity, disease damage, and activity, are collected from patients and providers at fixed intervals before and during outpatient clinic visits. Data are collected and visualized through a data capture system, which is linked directly to the patients’ electronic health record, which not only facilitates a more holistic care approach, but also helps with shared decision-making. RESULTS The IMID registry is an ongoing cohort with no end date. Inclusion started in April 2018. From start until September 2022, a total of 1417 patients have been included from the participating departments. The mean age at inclusion was 46 (SD 16) years, and 56% of the patient population is female. The average percentage of filled out questionnaires at baseline is 84%, which drops to 72% after 1 year of follow-up. This decline may be due to the fact that the outcomes are not always discussed during the outpatient clinic visit or because the questionnaires were sometimes forgotten to set out. The registry is also used for research purposes and 92% of the patients with IMIDs gave informed consent to use their data for that. CONCLUSIONS The IMID registry is a web-based digital system that collects provider- and PROs. The collected outcomes are used to improve care for the individual patient with an IMID and facilitate shared decision-making, and they are also used for research purposes. The measurement of these outcomes is an essential step toward the implementation of VBHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/43230

Missing data are frequently encountered in registries that are used to compare performance across hospitals. The most appropriate method for handling missing data when analysing differences in outcomes between hospitals is unclear. We aimed to compare methods for handling missing data when comparing hospitals on ordinal and dichotomous outcomes. We performed a simulation study using data came from the MR CLEAN registry, a prospective cohort study in 17 hospitals performing endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke in the Netherlands. The investigated methods for handling missing data, both case-mix adjustment variables and outcomes, were complete case analysis (CCA), single imputation, multiple imputation, single imputation with deletion of imputed outcomes and multiple imputation with deletion of imputed outcomes. Data were generated as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and missing not at random (MNAR) in three scenarios: (1) 10% missing data in case-mix and outcome; (2) 40% missing data in case-mix and outcome; and (3) 40% missing data in case-mix and outcome with varying degree of missing data among hospitals. Validity and reliability of the methods were compared on the mean squared error (MSE, a summary measure combining bias and precision) relative to the centre effect estimates from the complete reference dataset. For both the ordinal outcome (i.e. the modified Rankin scale) and a common dichotomized version thereof, the MSE of all methods was on average lowest under MCAR and with fewer missing data, and highest with more missing data and under MNAR. The ′ multiple imputation, then deletion′ method had the lowest MSE for both outcomes under all simulated patterns of missing data. Thus, when estimating centre effects on ordinal and dichotomous outcomes in the presence of missing data, the least biased and most precise method to handle these missing data is ′ multiple imputation, then deletion′.

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.