Real-World Use Of Faecal Calprotectin Testing In Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
D. T. Rubin,M. Yang,E. Q. Wu,M. Skup,W. -J. Lee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx180.262
2018-01-01
Abstract:Endoscopy is commonly used for diagnosis and management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, it is costly, invasive and has known risks of complications. Faecal calprotectin (FC) is a non-invasive biomarker of intestinal inflammation and is highly correlated with endoscopic disease activity. The use of FC testing is not well understood in IBD in a real-world setting. This retrospective cohort study examined the use of FC and subsequent endoscopy for patients who had an FC test vs. those who never had an FC test in Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) separately. The study, included adult patients (≥18years) with ≥2 diagnosis codes of UC or CD from 2008–2015 in the US Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Databases. Date of first FC test in the database was defined as index date for FC cohorts; a randomly selected date with an IBD diagnosis claim was defined as index date for non-FC cohorts. Patients were required to have continuous eligibility for ≥6 months before and ≥12 months after index date. Patients in each cohort were propensity score matched (1:1) to have comparable baseline characteristics. Proportions of patients who received endoscopy and average number of subsequent endoscopy procedures performed in CD and UC patients were summarised annually over 3 years post-index date. Trend analyses were conducted to examine whether endoscopy use was different between FC and non-FC cohorts over time. Among 47709 CD patients identified, 981 (2.06%) had FC testing; among 61276 UC patients identified, 522 (0.85%) had FC testing. Of patients who had FC testing, the proportion of subsequent FC testing decreased from year 1 to year 3 post-index date (UC: 22%, 13%, 10%; CD: 17%, 14%, 9%). After matching, FC and non-FC cohorts were comparable in baseline characteristics, including healthcare resource utilisation. Over the 3-year follow-up, trends of endoscopy use differed significantly between FC and non-FC cohorts. FC cohorts’ endoscopy use decreased over the 3-year follow-up (UC: 52%, 32%, 30%; CD: 47%, 29%, 26%), and proportions reduced to less than one-third starting year 2. However, consistently over one-third of patients used endoscopy in non-FC cohorts (UC: 36%, 35%, 38%; CD: 33%, 35%, 33%). Similarly, average numbers of endoscopies per patient decreased in FC cohorts over time (UC: 0.67, 0.40, 0.36; CD: 0.57, 0.36, 0.33) vs. a consistent use in non-FC cohorts (UC: 0.42, 0.46, 0.47; CD: 0.41, 0.46, 0.42). The 3-year trends were significantly different between FC and non-FC cohorts (p < 0.001). Implementation of FC testing has been limited in US clinical practice. Patients with FC testing had reduced endoscopy use over time vs. patients who never received FC testing.