P202 Streamlining primary and secondary care pathways reduces the time-to-specialist IBD care: the emergence of FIT and the relative decline of calprotectin testing in primary care

R Smith,V Cairnes,M Bishara,Y Djouider,D Chee,C Roberts,N Kennedy,T Ahmad,J Goodhand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0332

2024-01-01

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis

Abstract:Abstract Background Streamlining primary and secondary care pathways reduces the time-to-specialist IBD care. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, using an algorithm that screens endoscopy reports for probable IBD, we halved the time to IBD specialist review and treatment. Previous studies report that faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) could be used like calprotectin to test for suspected IBD. We sought to define the changing use of calprotectin and FIT prior to the diagnosis of IBD, and to determine whether their use influenced the time to secondary care treatment. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of the time from endoscopic diagnosis of IBD to initiation of treatment. Demographics, stool testing, referral route, disease type, clinical review and treatment data were recorded from our electronic patient record. We sought factors associated with a delay in treatment defined as the upper quartile of time-to-treatment using logistic regression. Results Between 01/07/16 and 01/09/23 there were 805 new diagnoses of IBD (503 UC, 225 Crohn’s disease and 77 IBD-U). Monthly diagnosis rates were stable across the pandemic, except for March 2020 due to endoscopy unit closure. The median time from endoscopy to specialist review was 19.0 days (IQR7.0-44.0) and time to outpatient treatment 5.0 days (IQR 0.0-29.0 days). Overall, the use of pre-IBD diagnosis stool biomarkers has increased over time, but since 2020 there has been a progressive rise in FIT, and a decrease in calprotectin, testing (Fig 1). By 2023, people with a new diagnosis of IBD were more likely to have FIT than calprotectin testing. Whilst stool biomarker testing did not influence the time-to-IBD treatment, FIT testing was associated with a reduced delay from primary referral to endoscopy (OR 0.17 p=0.023). Factors associated with a delay in treatment were a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease versus UC/IBDU, having your index endoscopy undertake by a colorectal surgeon and being managed on a non-emergency pathway. IBD nurse contact prior to medical clinic review was associated with a significant reduction in delay to treatment (OR 0.55 p=0.003) Conclusion In the Southwest of the UK, pre-IBD diagnosis FIT, is now more common than pre-IBD diagnosis calprotectin testing. Factors linked to a delay in treatment were being diagnosed with Crohn’s disease versus UC/IBDU, having your index endoscopy undertaken by a colorectal surgeon and not specialist nurse or gastroenterologist and being managed on a non-emergency pathway. Further studies are needed to understand the influence of FIT versus calprotectin testing in the primary care diagnosis of IBD.

gastroenterology & hepatology