English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Fecal Calprotectin (FC) is helpful in distinguishing functional from organic bowel disease. Also, it has proven useful in monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The uptake of its use in clinical practice has increased considerably, though access varies significantly. Studies exploring current practice patterns among GI specialists and how to optimize its use are limited. In 2017, Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC) began funding FC testing at no cost to patients. Aims We aimed to better understand practice patterns of gastroenterologists in IBD patients where there is in house access to FC assays, and to generate hypotheses regarding its optimal use in IBD monitoring. We hypothesize that FC is not being used in a regular manner for monitoring of IBD patients. Methods A retrospective chart audit study was done on all KHSC patients who had FC testing completed from 2017–2018. Qualitative data was gathered from dictated reports using rigorous set definitions regarding indication for the test, change in clinical decision making, and frequency patterns of testing. Specifically, change in use for colonoscopy or in medical therapy was coded only if the dictated note was clear that a decision hinged largely on the FC result. Frequency of testing was based on test order date. Reactive testing was coded as tests ordered to confirm a clinical flare. Variable testing was coded where monitoring tests that varied in intervals greater than 3 months and crossed over the other set frequency codes. Quantitative data regarding FC test values, and dates were also collected. This data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the 834 patients in our study, 7 were under 18 years old and excluded. 562(67.34%) of these patients had a pre-existing diagnosis of IBD; 193 (34%) with Ulcerative Colitis (UC), 369 (66%) with Crohn’s Disease (CD). FC testing changed the clinician’s decision for medical therapy in 12.82% of cases and use for colonoscopy 13.06% of the time for all comers. Of the FC tests, 79.8% were sent in a variable frequency pattern and 2.68% with reactive intent. The remaining 17.5% were monitored with a regular pattern, with 8.57% patients having their FC monitored at regular intervals greater than 6 months, 7.68% every 6 months, and 1.25% less than 6 months. The average FC level of patients with UC was 356.2ug/ml and 330.6 ug/ml for CD. The mean time interval from 1st to 2nd test was 189.6 days. Conclusions FC testing changed clinical decisions regarding medical therapy and use for colonoscopy about 13% of the time. FC testing was done variably 79.8% of the time, where as 17.5% of patients had a regular FC monitoring schedule. An optimal monitoring interval for IBD flares using FC for maximal clinical benefit has yet to be determined. Large scale studies will be required to answer this question. Funding Agencies None

A164 UPTAKE OF FECAL CALPROTECTIN IN PRACTICE: PATTERNS IN A TERTIARY GI REFERRAL CENTRE