Article Text

Download PDFPDF

PTH-126 Audit of biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: results from the UK IBD registry
  1. Mustafa Shawihdi1,
  2. Fraser Cummings2,3,
  3. Stuart Bloom2,4,
  4. Keith Bodger1
  1. 1University Of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2UK IBD Registry, Epsom, UK
  3. 3University Hospitals Southampton, Southampton, UK
  4. 4University College Hospital London, London, UK


Introduction Ensuring the safe, appropriate and effective use of costly biological agents presents a significant challenge for healthcare systems. Although no longer funded as a national audit programme, NHS England has identified audit of biologics for IBD as a priority area for QI activity for hospitals (Quality Accounts List). The UK IBD Registry provides a system for collecting, submitting and reporting data to support participation in biologics audit.

Methods Participating centres submit quarterly extracts of standardised data collected via a range of software solutions, including demographics, clinical characteristics, infection screening, drug initiations, clinical review visits and disease activity scores. Eligible cases for audit require a record of drug start date and baseline visit. Algorithmic analysis identifies most relevant review visit and associated disease score if recorded (time-windows: post-induction, 8–16 wks; 12-month review, 44–60 wks). The rolling audit focuses on seven key performance indicators (KPIs). Cumulative results are presented, focused on each patient’s first biologic initiation (April 2016 – Present).

Results 3,617 eligible cases (CD: 61%; UC: 35%; IBD-U: 3%). Humira 36%; Remsima 24%; Inflectra 18%; Vedolizumab 14%; Remicade 3%; Golimumab 2%; Ustekinumab 2%; Not specified 1%.

Table 1 shows mean KPIs (%) across all sites, and sub-divided by eligible cases. Across the seven KPIs, 20–45% of hospitals had results below the registry-wide mean value (arbitrary benchmark).

Abstract PTH-126 Table 1

Conclusions The UK IBD Registry is supporting a growing network of hospitals with participation in continuous biologics audit, providing benchmarking reports to drive local and registry-wide quality improvement. Although incomplete case ascertainment and missing data are inevitable challenges, the biologics data is maturing as sites establish live registers. Results highlight an ongoing need for most centres to improve biologics monitoring through better-organised and documented review visits with objective recording of standardised outcomes.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.