P39 Delayed IBD diagnosis increases risk of requiring biologics in first 4-years -an inception cohort study. (19th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rao, Abhishek; Bazarova, Alina; Mitra, Pathrabali; Parigi, Tommaso Lorenzo; Majumder, Snehali; Ghosh, Subrata; Iacucci, Marietta; Shivaji, UdayN
• Is Part Of: Gut. Volume 71(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A56
• Page End: A57
• Publication Date: 2022-06-19
• Subjects: Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-BSG.99
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0017-5749

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Delays in diagnosis could be due to patient-related and health-system related factors. The impact of such delays in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD), particularly on biological therapies, continues to be a subject of interest. The aim of the study was to investigate if delays could predict need for biologics and report on related adverse outcomes (AOs). Methods: New patients referred for suspected IBD to a single tertiary care centre between Jan 2013 to Dec 2017 were identified using EMR. For purposes of the study, delay-types and cut-off times for each type was set by investigators based on best average hospital waiting times. The reasons for delays until start of treatment were recorded; data on the start of biologics, duration, and reasons for switch (if required) were recorded. The data were analysed using multiple Pearson correlations and Cox proportional Hazard model to determine whether any delay-type/s could predict need for biologics and compare the risk between patients with or without a delay. Results: Total of 105 patients were identified using stringent criteria (M=58; median age=32y) with a long median follow-up of 55 months. 65, 27 and 13 patients had final diagnosis of Ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and Unclassified colitis respectively, and were analysed collectively. In our cohort, a model that combined delay in seeking medical attention, and time taken from specialty review to index endoscopy exhibited the best predictive power with average AUROC of 0.67. When individual delay-types were analysed, it was noted that most delay-types increased the risk of biologic use- a) delay in seeking medical attention [OR-1.08 (1.03 1.17)] b) delay from GP referral to specialty review [OR-1.10 (1.0 1.23)] c) delay from specialty review to index endoscopy [OR-1.09 (1.01 1.21)] On further analysis of patient-related delay and health-system related delays, there was a statistically significant increase noted in the risk of requiring biologics at any time during the follow-up period. Fig 1A illustrates survival without biologics when there is a delay of >2 weeks in seeking medical attention (p=0.042) . Figure 1B illustrates survival without biologics when there is delay of >6 weeks from GP referral to index endoscopy procedure (p=0.021) . Conclusions: 1) The risk of requiring biologic therapy is higher in those patients who have faced any type of delay in their diagnosis of IBD. A patient–related delay of >2weeks and cumulative health–system related delay of >6weeks increase the risk of requiring biologic therapy at any time during their follow–up. Both primary and secondary care must work to reduce any delays as this has long–term implications for patients and economic implications for the health care providers.