Predicting Pre-emptive Discussions of Biologic Treatment: Results from an Openness and Preference Survey of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients and Their Prescribers

INTRODUCTION It is important to compare patient and provider discrepancies on stated openness to and preference for biologics as well as predictors associated with initial discussions on biologic use. METHODS Patients (N = 263) and physicians (N = 100) completed a self-administered Web-based survey assessing demographics, health characteristics, and behaviors related to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment. Bootstrap methods were used to check discrepancies between providers' and patients' stated openness to and preference for biologics. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis identified patient-specific predictors associated with initial biologics discussions. RESULTS A total of 170 patients responded consistently to preference questions, and 169 patients responded consistently to openness questions. Physicians significantly overestimated patients' openness to biologics in general (85.46% vs. 74.61%, p < 0.0001), but underestimated patients' openness to the intravenous (IV) mode of administration (MOA; 55.97% vs. 63.96%, p < 0.0001). Overall, physicians significantly underestimated patient preference for IV MOA (22.07% vs. 42.35%, p < 0.0001) and, to a lesser extent, subcutaneous MOA (48.84% vs. 54.69%, p < 0.0001). Among Crohn's disease (CD) patients (N = 123), CART threshold analysis identified an inpatient visit in the last 6 months, CD diagnosis for more than 3 years, and non-adherence to prior IBD treatment as most positively predictive of having an initial biologics discussion. CONCLUSION Physicians appear to underestimate patient preferences in favor of biologics, especially IV formulations. Since it is unclear if physicians were aware of the patients' preferences beforehand, this study supports the need for validated, shared decision-making tools when initiating IBD treatment. Additional studies are necessary to measure physicians' influences on patient preference/treatment-related decisions and the impact on patient outcomes.