How do Swiss Gastroenterologists assess Activity of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Daily Practice: by Clinical Indices, Endoscopic Activity, or Biomarkers?

Background a nd A ims: There is a n ongoing d ebate which i sthe most appropriate w ay t o measure inflammatory boweldisease (IBD) activity (be it b y clinical i ndices, e ndoscopy, orbiomarkers). Accumulating evidence associates m ucosalhealing with a reduction in I BD-related s urgery andhospitalizations. We a imed to i nvestigate which outcomeparameters are used in daily practice for IBD monitoring.Methods: A q uestionnaire was sent in J uly 2010 t o all boardcertified gastroenterologists in S witzerland to evaluate t heassessment strategy of IBD activity, t he items on whichtherapeutic decisions w ere based upon, and the kind ofbiomarkers used for monitoring IBD activity.Results: Response rate was 57% (153/270). Mean physician'sage was 5 0±9years, mean duration o f gastroenterologicpractice 1 4±8years, 52% of them were working in p rivatepractice a nd 48% in h ospitals. S eventy-eight percent usedclinical activity i ndices as g old standard for IBD activityassessment, followed by 15% choosing endoscopic activity, and7% favouring biomarkers. Gastroenterologists based theirtherapeutic decisions in 70% on clinical activity indices, 24% onendoscopic activity, a nd 6% o n biomarkers. Most frequentlyused biomarkers were C-reactive protein (94%), complete bloodcount (78%) and fecal calprotectin (74%).Conclusions: I n daily p ractice, most IBD patients a remonitored based u pon t heir clinical a ctivity. B iomarkers a reperceived as l ess important compared to clinical andendoscopic activity. S imilar to activity a ssessment, alsotherapeutic decisions a re mostly made on the basis of clinicalactivity indices. The upcoming scientific evidence on the impactof mucosal h ealing does n ot yet seem to influence the dailypractice of gastroenterologists.