Search in the Abstract Database

Search Abstracts 2016

* = Presenting author

P591 Satisfaction with treatment amongst inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving subcutaneous biologic treatment and infused biologic treatment

S. Wang*1, J. Piercy2, R. Jakubanis2, M. Skup1

1AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, Illinois, United States, 2Adelphi Real World, Manchester, United Kingdom

Background

Limited data are available regarding the satisfaction with subcutaneous treatment (SC) versus infused treatment (IV) amongst inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients receiving biologic therapies.

Methods

Data were taken from the 2015 IBD Disease Specific Programme (DSP), a large, cross-sectional, multi-country survey of IBD patients and their gastroenterologists. The survey was conducted in the European Union 5 (EU5): the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Gastroenterologists completed patient record forms including patient demographics, current treatment, satisfaction with treatment, and adherence to current treatment. The patients completed patient self-completion forms including questions about adherence to current treatment and satisfaction with and concerns about the treatment. Satisfaction questions covered side effects, frequency of dosing, discomfort when (and after) receiving the treatment, and patient-perceived efficacy. Questions about concerns with the treatment included difficulty and method of administration, lack of knowledge about the drug, fear of reliance on the drug, concern that there may be better medications, cost, potential side effects, long-term problems, and symptom reduction. Patients on SC biologics were compared with patients receiving IV biologics. Comparisons between groups were assessed using Fisher’s exact and Chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and Mann–Whitney tests for continuous variables.

Results

In total, 655 moderate and severe IBD patients from EU5 (234 with UC vs 421 with CD) were included in the analysis (mean age 38.2 ± 13.5, 53.9% male), with 275 patients receiving SC biologics, and 380 patients receiving IV biologic treatments. Statistically significant differences between patients receiving SC and IV treatment were found in patient-reported dissatisfaction with the method of administration (SC 19.2% dissatisfied vs IV 33.5% dissatisfied; p = 0.006), concern over difficulty of drug administration (SC 8.9% concerned vs IV 18.9% concerned; p = 0.02), and lack of knowledge about the drug they are prescribed (SC 35.0% vs IV 17.1%; p = 0.0006). Further statistical differences were found in patient-reported satisfaction [1–5 scale, where 1 = ‘not at all’ and 5 = ‘very’] with side effects (SC 3.6 ± 1.1 vs, IV 3.3 ± 1.1; p = 0.02) and frequency of dosing (SC 3.7 ± 1.1 vs IV 3.4 ± 1.1; p = 0.03). Patients on SC-treatment had better physician-reported adherence to treatment (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

The study found that patients receiving subcutaneous biologics may have fewer concerns regarding the method and difficulty of drug administration, frequency of dosing, and side effects. Further, patients on subcutaneous treatment may have better adherence to treatment.