Department of Gastroenterology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Department of Gastroenterology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;5(10):890-899. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30215-6. Epub 2020 Jul 14.
Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the health-care system. Most specialist care is provided by a gastroenterologist, but only a minority of patients have improvement in symptoms. Although they have proven to be effective, psychological, behavioural, and dietary therapies are not provided routinely. We aimed to compare the outcome of gastroenterologist-only standard care with multidisciplinary care.
In an open-label, single-centre, pragmatic trial, consecutive new referrals of eligible patients aged 18-80 years with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive gastroenterologist-only standard care or multidisciplinary clinic care. The multidisciplinary clinic included gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut-focused hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and behavioural (biofeedback) physiotherapists. Randomisation was stratified by Rome IV disorder and whether referred from gastroenterology or colorectal clinic. Outcomes were assessed at clinic discharge or 9 months after the initial visit. The primary outcome was a score of 4 (slightly better) or 5 (much better) on a 5-point Likert scale assessing global symptom improvement. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who attended at least one clinic visit and who had answered the primary outcome question. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03078634.
Between March 16, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 1632 patients referred to the hospital gastrointestinal clinics were screened, of whom 442 were eligible for a screening telephone call and 188 were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (n=65) or multidisciplinary care (n=123). 144 patients formed the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=46 in the standard-care group and n=98 in the multidisciplinary-care group), 90 (63%) of whom were women. 61 (62%) of 98 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group patients saw allied clinicians. 26 (57%) patients in the standard-care group and 82 (84%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had global symptom improvement (risk ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·13-1·93]; p=0·00045). 29 (63%) patients in the standard-care group and 81 (83%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had adequate relief of symptoms in the past 7 days (p=0·010). Patients in the multidisciplinary-care group were more likely to experience a 50% or higher reduction in all Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index symptom clusters than were patients in the standard-care group. Of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a 50-point or higher reduction in IBS-SSS occurred in 10 (38%) of 26 patients in the standard care group compared with 39 (66%) of 59 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·017). Of the patients with functional dyspepsia, a 50% reduction in the Nepean Dyspepsia Index was noted in three (11%) of 11 patients in the standard-care group and in 13 (46%) of 28 in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·47). After treatment, the median HADS scores were higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (13 [8-20] vs 10 [6-16]; p=0·096) and the median EQ-5D-5L quality of life visual analogue scale was lower in the standard-care group compared with the multidisciplinary-care group (70 [IQR 50-80] vs 75 [65-85]; p=0·0087). The eight SF-36 scales did not differ between the groups at discharge. After treatment, median Somatic Symptom Scale-8 score was higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (10 [IQR 7-7] vs 9 [5-13]; p=0·082). Cost per successful outcome was higher in the standard-care group than the multidisciplinary-care group.
Integrated multidisciplinary clinical care appears to be superior to gastroenterologist-only care in relation to symptoms, specific functional disorders, psychological state, quality of life, and cost of care for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Consideration should be given to providing multidisciplinary care for patients with a functional gastrointestinal disorder.
None.
功能性胃肠疾病很常见,给医疗保健系统带来了高昂的成本。大多数专科治疗由胃肠病学家提供,但只有少数患者的症状有所改善。尽管心理、行为和饮食疗法已被证明有效,但并未常规提供这些疗法。我们旨在比较胃肠病学家标准护理与多学科护理的结果。
在一项开放性、单中心、实用临床试验中,符合罗马 IV 标准定义的功能性胃肠疾病的新转诊患者(年龄 18-80 岁)连续入选,按照 1:2 的比例随机分配(分层因素为罗马 IV 障碍和是否来自胃肠病学或结直肠诊所)接受胃肠病学家标准护理或多学科诊所护理。多学科诊所包括胃肠病学家、营养师、肠道聚焦催眠治疗师、精神科医生和行为(生物反馈)物理治疗师。主要结局是 5 分制量表上的全球症状改善评分(4 分:略有改善;5 分:明显改善)。改良意向治疗分析包括所有至少参加过一次诊所就诊且回答过主要结局问题的患者。这项研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT03078634。
2017 年 3 月 16 日至 2018 年 5 月 10 日,对医院胃肠道诊所进行了筛选,共有 442 名患者接受了电话筛查,188 名患者随机分配接受标准护理(n=65)或多学科护理(n=123)。144 名患者纳入改良意向治疗分析(标准护理组 46 例,多学科护理组 98 例),其中 90 例(63%)为女性。多学科护理组 61 例(62%)患者接受了联合治疗。标准护理组 26 例(57%)患者和多学科护理组 82 例(84%)患者的全球症状改善(风险比 1.50 [95%CI 1.13-1.93];p=0.00045)。标准护理组 29 例(63%)患者和多学科护理组 81 例(83%)患者在过去 7 天内症状得到充分缓解(p=0.010)。多学科护理组患者的胃肠道症状严重程度综合指数(Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index)所有症状群的缓解程度比标准护理组患者高 50%或更高。在肠易激综合征患者中,标准护理组 26 例患者中有 10 例(38%)IBS-SSS 评分降低 50 分或更高,多学科护理组 59 例患者中有 39 例(66%)(p=0.017)。功能性消化不良患者中,标准护理组 11 例患者中有 3 例(11%),多学科护理组 28 例患者中有 13 例(46%)的 Nepean 消化不良指数降低 50%(p=0.47)。治疗后,标准护理组患者的 HADS 评分中位数高于多学科护理组(13 [8-20] vs 10 [6-16];p=0.096),标准护理组患者的 EQ-5D-5L 质量生活视觉模拟量表评分中位数低于多学科护理组(70 [IQR 50-80] vs 75 [65-85];p=0.0087)。出院时两组间的 8 项 SF-36 量表无差异。治疗后,标准护理组患者躯体症状量表-8 评分中位数高于多学科护理组(10 [IQR 7-7] vs 9 [5-13];p=0.082)。标准护理组的成功治疗结果成本高于多学科护理组。
与胃肠病学家标准护理相比,多学科临床护理在症状、特定功能性疾病、心理状态、生活质量和功能性胃肠疾病治疗成本方面似乎更优。对于功能性胃肠疾病患者,应考虑提供多学科护理。
无。