Are clinical outcomes in IBD improved by multidisciplinary clinics?

Cervical Cancer Screening in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Who Should Be Screening?

Background

Immunosuppressed women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at elevated risk of cervical cancer yet have lower screening rates. The objective of this study was to assess the familiarity with cervical cancer screening recommendations, and the perceived responsibility for implementing screening among three physician groups involved in the clinical care of women with IBD: primary care physicians (PCP), gastroenterologists (GI) and gynecologists (GYN).

Methods

We anonymously surveyed a sample of 117 PCP, 52 GYN and 35 GI physicians affiliated with Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA, from April 2018 to January 2019. The physicians completed a questionnaire adressing essential aspects of cervical cancer screening such as screening age, screening frequency, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, comfort level in performing Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, perception of physician responsibility in terms of which physicians should perform Pap smears.

Results

A total of 2.6% of PCPs, 37% of GIs and 29% of GYNs reported familiarity with cervical cancer screening recommendations. In addition, PCP and GI had no definite opinions regarding which physicians should be in charge of cervical cancer screening and performing Pap smears. However, 94% of GYNs felt that they should be in charge of cervical cancer screening and performing Pap smears.

Conclusions

An apparent lack of familiarity exists among all three physician groups regarding cervical cancer screening recommendations in immunosuppressed patients with IBD. Similarly, there is no consensus regarding which specialty should be responsible for cervical cancer screening in this patient population.

Impact of an Integrated Model of Care on Outcomes of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Evidence From a Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies evaluating the impact of integrated models of care [IMC] for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] on disease-related outcomes are needed. We compared the risk of IBD-related outcomes and prescription medication claims between patients exposed and non-exposed to an IMC.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based matched cohort study was conducted between 2009 and 2015, using administrative health data of Saskatchewan, Canada. Patients aged 18+ years with a diagnosis of IBD were identified with a validated administrative definition. Cases were classified as exposed and non-exposed to the IMC for IBD and matched based on propensity scores and disease duration. IBD-related hospitalisations, surgeries, prescription medication claims, and corticosteroid dependency [CsDep] were measured. Cox and logistic regression models evaluated differences between the groups, estimating hazard [HRs] and odds [ORs] ratios with corresponding confidence intervals [CIs].

RESULTS

In total, 2312 matched patients were included; 24.3% were exposed individuals. Compared with non-exposed, exposed patients had a lower risk of IBD-related surgeries [HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.99], higher risk of prescriptions of immune modulators [HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.42-1.99], and biologics [HR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.52-2.27], and a lower risk of 5-aminosalicylic acid prescriptions [HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95]. A lower risk of IBD-related hospitalisations among exposed ulcerative colitis [UC] patients [HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.89] was identified in stratified analyses. The odds of CsDep among exposed UC patients was 0.39 [95% CI 0.15-0.98].

CONCLUSIONS

The observed differences in disease-related outcomes and use of steroid-sparing maintenance therapies between exposed and non-exposed individuals support the concept that enhanced quality of care can be achieved within IMC for IBD.

Optimizing perioperative Crohn's disease management: Role of coordinated medical and surgical care

AIM: To investigate rates of re-establishing gastroenterology care, colonoscopy, and/or initiating medical therapy after Crohn’s disease (CD) surgery at a tertiary care referral center.

METHODS: CD patients having small bowel or ileocolonic resections with a primary anastomosis between 2009-2012 were identified from a tertiary academic referral center. CD-specific features, medications, and surgical outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. The primary outcome measure was compliance rates with medical follow-up within 4 wk of hospital discharge and surveillance colonoscopy within 12 mo of surgery.

RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients met study inclusion criteria with 92% (n = 81) of patients returning for surgical follow-up compared to only 41% (n = 36) of patients with documented gastroenterology follow-up within four-weeks of hospital discharge, P < 0.05. Factors associated with more timely postoperative medical follow-up included younger age, longer length of hospitalization, postoperative biologic use and academic center patients. In the study cohort, 75.0% of patients resumed medical therapy within 12 mo, whereas only 53.4% of patients underwent a colonoscopy within 12 mo of surgery.

CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for coordinated CD multidisciplinary clinics and structured handoffs among providers to improve of quality of care in the postoperative setting.