Survival and cause specific mortality in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a long term outcome study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940-2004

University of Copenhagen Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Capital Region, Denmark
Gut (Impact Factor: 13.32). 10/2006; 55(9):1248-54. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2005.079350
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We followed a population based cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from Olmsted County, Minnesota, in order to analyse long term survival and cause specific mortality. Material and
A total of 692 patients were followed for a median of 14 years. Standardised mortality ratios (SMRs, observed/expected deaths) were calculated for specific causes of death. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine if clinical variables were independently associated with mortality.
Fifty six of 314 Crohn's disease patients died compared with 46.0 expected (SMR 1.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.6)), and 62 of 378 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients died compared with 79.2 expected (SMR 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.0)). Eighteen patients with Crohn's disease (32%) died from disease related complications, and 12 patients (19%) died from causes related to UC. In Crohn's disease, an increased risk of dying from non-malignant gastrointestinal causes (SMR 6.4 (95% CI 3.2-11.5)), gastrointestinal malignancies (SMR 4.7 (95% CI 1.7-10.2)), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (SMR 3.5 (95% CI 1.3-7.5)) was observed. In UC, cardiovascular death was reduced (SMR 0.6 (95% CI 0.4-0.9)). Increased age at diagnosis and male sex were associated with mortality in both subtypes. In UC but not Crohn's disease, a diagnosis after 1980 was associated with decreased mortality.
In this population based study of IBD patients from North America, overall survival was similar to that expected in the US White population. Crohn's disease patients were at increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal disease and COPD whereas UC patients had a decreased risk of cardiovascular death.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The cost-effectiveness of annual colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine whether annual colonoscopy among patients with IBD-PSC is cost-effective compared with less frequent intervals from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system. Methods: A cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was used to simulate a 35-year-old patient with a 10-year history of well-controlled IBD and a recent diagnosis of concomitant PSC. The following strategies were compared: no surveillance, colonoscopy every 5 years, biennial colonoscopy, and annual colonoscopy. Outcome measures included: costs, number of cases of dysplasia found, number of cancers found and missed, deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and the incremental cost per QALY gained. Results: In the base-case analysis, no surveillance was the least expensive and least effective strategy. Compared with no surveillance, the cost per QALY of surveillance every 5 years was CAD $15,021. The cost per QALY of biennial surveillance compared with surveillance every 5 years was CAD $ 37,522. Annual surveillance was more effective than biennial surveillance, but at an incremental cost of CAD $ 174,650 per QALY gained compared with biennial surveillance. Conclusions: More frequent colonoscopy screening intervals improve effectiveness (i.e., detects more cancers and prevents additional deaths), but at higher cost. Health systems must consider the opportunity costs associated with different surveillance colonoscopy intervals when deciding which strategy to implement among patients with IBD-PSC.
    Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 09/2014; 20(11). DOI:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000181 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 10/2014; 62(10). DOI:10.1111/jgs.13046 · 4.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We propose a new parametric model – the generalized excess mortality (GEM) model – for converting excess mortality from clinical to insured population. The GEM model has been formulated as a generalization of the excess death rate (EDR) model in terms of a single adjustment parameter (m) that accounts for a partial elimination of a clinical study’s EDR due to the underwriting selection process. The suggested value of the parameter m depends only on the ratio of the impairment’s prevalence rate in the insured population to that in the clinical population. The model’s development has been implemented in two phases: the design phase and the validation phase. In the design phase, the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I pertaining to three broad impairments (diabetes, coronary artery disease, and asthma) have been used. As a result, the following equation for the parameter m has been proposed: mk = (Pi , k/Pc , k) n, where Pi , k, Pc , k are the prevalence rates of impairment k under study in the insured and the clinical populations, respectively, and n a single universal parameter with its value best approximated as n = 0.5 (95% confidence interval 0.5–0.6). In the validation phase, several independent clinical studies of three other impairments (Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were used. As it has been demonstrated in the validation phase, for a number of impairments, the GEM model can provide a better fit for observed insured population mortality than either one of the conventional EDR or mortality ratio models.
    Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 06/2013; 2015(2):184-199. DOI:10.1080/03461238.2013.807299 · 1.18 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014