E0376 - The Real World Global Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) for the Care of Patients With IBD

Jamie Horrigan, MD¹, Edouard Louis, MD, PhD², Antonino Spinelli, MD, PhD³, Simon Travis, DPhil⁴, Bjørn Moum, MD⁵, Jessica Salwen-Deremer, PhD¹, Jonas Halfvarson, MD, PhD⁶, Remo Panaccione, MD⁷, Marla C. Dubinsky, MD⁸, Pia Munkholm, MD, DMSci⁹, Corey A. Siegel, MD, MS^1
1Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; ²CHU Liège University Hospital, Liege, Liege, Belgium; ³IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Lombardia, Italy; ⁴Kennedy Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, United Kingdom; ⁵Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Oslo, Norway; ⁶Örebro University, Örebro, Orebro Lan, Sweden; ⁷University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; ⁸Susan and Leonard Feinstein IBD Center, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, NY; ⁹North Zealand University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Roskilde, Syddanmark, Denmark

Introduction: Many patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been developed for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), often for research, without clear recommendations for clinical use. PROs differ from physician-reported disease activity indices; they assess patients’ perceptions of their symptoms, functional status, mental health, and quality of life, among other areas. The use of PROs and their utility in clinical practice is unknown. Thus, we sought to investigate the current global use and barriers to using PROs in clinical practice for IBD.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed. Members of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD) were invited to participate and invite regional colleagues.

Results: There were 194 respondents, including adult/pediatric gastroenterologists, advanced-practice providers, and colorectal surgeons from 5 continents. The majority (80%) use PROs in clinical practice, 65% found value in routine use, and 50% indicated that PROs influenced patient management. 31 different PROs for IBD were reportedly used in clinical practice. For providers who never use PROs, the most significant barriers were not being familiar with PROs (53%), not knowing how to incorporate the results of PROs into clinical practice (33%), lack of integration into the electronic medical record (EMR) (28%), and time constraints (20%). There was no significant difference in volume of IBD patients seen per week or time spent during a follow up visit between providers who use and do not use PROs. Most participants (91%) agreed that it would be beneficial to have an accepted set of PROs that were consistently used. Suggested PRO tools are listed in Table 1. The majority (60%) thought that there should be some cultural differences in PROs used globally but that the PROs for IBD should be consistent around the world.

Discussion: PROs are used frequently in clinical practice with wide variation in which PROs are used and how they influence patient management. Education around how to use and interpret an accepted set of PRO tools that are integrated into the EMR would decrease barriers for use and could allow for global harmonization. Patient perceptions of PROs for IBD is being explored and will further inform this process.



Disclosures:


Jamie Horrigan, MD¹, Edouard Louis, MD, PhD², Antonino Spinelli, MD, PhD³, Simon Travis, DPhil⁴, Bjørn Moum, MD⁵, Jessica Salwen-Deremer, PhD¹, Jonas Halfvarson, MD, PhD⁶, Remo Panaccione, MD⁷, Marla C. Dubinsky, MD⁸, Pia Munkholm, MD, DMSci⁹, Corey A. Siegel, MD, MS¹. E0376 - The Real World Global Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) for the Care of Patients With IBD, ACG 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting Abstracts. Charlotte, NC: American College of Gastroenterology.