P355 Acceptability of treatment regimen in inflammatory bowel disease: Results from a prospective nationwide study (ACCEPT2)

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).