Background The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a clinical situation that could be used as prototype for implementation of new systems of care. Methods This was a single-center, cross-sectional study. We evaluated the feasibility of a strategy based on the conversion of face-to-face visits to telephone consultations to manage IBD outpatients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A 4-item telephone survey (3 closed questions and a 100-point numeric description scale) was conducted to evaluate satisfaction of patients with telephone consultations. Results Between March 11 and April 8, 2020, 98% of the 216 scheduled face-to-face visits could be converted to telephone consultations, and we resolved an additional 162 urgent consultations by telephone. The rate of IBD-related hospitalization and visits to the emergency department decreased by 50% and 58%, respectively, compared with rates in the same period the previous year. The 4-item survey was conducted in 171 outpatients. In closed questions, patients reported a very high degree of satisfaction with telephone consultations, with no differences between scheduled (n = 123) and urgent consultations (n = 48; P = NS). The overall satisfaction rating with the telephone consultation evaluated with the numerical description scale was 94% and 93% for scheduled and urgent consultations, respectively (P < 0.82). Less than 20% of patients would have preferred a face-to-face visit to the telephone consultation at the time. Conclusions A strategy based on the conversion of face-to-face visits to telephone consultations was able to guarantee a minimum standard quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients reported a very high degree of satisfaction with telephone consultations.

No abstract

Background:The aim of this study was to evaluate reliability of four different assays for measuring infliximab trough levels and antibodies to infliximab (ATI).Methods:In this non-interventional, cross-sectional study including IBD patients, infliximab levels and ATI were measured using four different assays: Lisa-Tracker, Promonitor, Q-Inflixi and Sanquin. Reliability and agreement for infliximab levels was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots. Qualitative agreement for infliximab (based on a pre-established target window of trough levels between 3 µg/ml and 7 µg/ml) and for ATI were estimated by Cohen’s kappa.Results:Serum samples of 84 IBD patients were evaluated for infliximab using the four assays. Reliability was ‘substantial’ between Lisa-Tracker versus Promonitor and ‘almost perfect’ between the remaining assay pairs, with ICCs [95% confidence interval (CI)] ranging from 0.93 (0.70–0.97) for Lisa-Tracker versus Promonitor to 0.97 (0.95–0.98) for Q-Inflixi versus Sanquin. Bland–Altman plots showed significant bias between assays except Promonitor versus Q-Inflixi, which had excellent agreement. The greatest differences in mean infliximab were found between Promonitor versus Lisa-Tracker (–0.91 µg/ml) and Lisa-Tracker versus Q-Inflixi (0.69 µg/ml). Qualitative agreement for infliximab was ‘almost perfect’ for Promonitor versus Q-Inflixi (kappa 0.84) and Q-Inflixi versus Sanquin (kappa 0.81), and ‘substantial’ for the remaining pairs. More than 10% of patients who had infliximab levels within the target interval by Lisa-Tracker had suboptimal concentrations (<3 µg/ml) with Promonitor and Q-Inflixi. Furthermore, 11% of patients within the target interval by Q-Inflixi had supra-optimal levels (>7 µg/ml) by Lisa-Tracker. In the remaining paired comparisons, fewer than 5% of patients were placed in different subgroups. Qualitative agreement for ATI fluctuated between ‘moderate’ and ‘almost perfect’.Conclusions:All four assays seem suitable for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab. Promonitor and Q-Inflixi had the best agreement, making those assays fully interchangeable. Systematic biases between Lisa-Tracker with Promonitor and Q-Inflixi suggest that these assays should not be interchanged during the follow up of an individual patient.

A discrepancy exists between physician and patient perceptions of the impact of psychological aspects in IBD, with patients perceiving higher impact and more under treatment than physicians. Given the influence of these aspects on patient well-being, it seems advisable to enrich professionals' training, improve the clinical management of psychological aspects of IBD, and probably include psychologists in IBD care teams.