IBD patient care – the clinical practice of gastroenterology outpatient centres in the Czech Republic

Czech version

Authors: L. Hrdlička Za Sdružení Ambulantních Gastroenterologů ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Gastroenterologie, Poliklinika Budějovická, Medicon a. s., Praha ¹
Published in: Gastroent Hepatol 2014; 68(5): 456-460
Category: IDB: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amgh2014456

Overview

The number of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis) has increased steadily. Gastroenterology outpatient centres are playing a very important role in care for these patients. Clinical practice of care for patients suffering from idiopathic inflammatory bowel diseases at these centres was assessed in our study. The data was obtained using a structured questionnaire comprising four major topics (characteristics of the centre, diagnosis, therapy and monitoring of patients). The obtained data was compared with the local and international recommendations and showed high professional standards of care.

Key words:
inflammatory bowel disease – Crohn’s disease – ulcerative colitis – outpatient care – diagnosis – therapy – monitoring of patients

The author declares he has no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE „uniform requirements“ for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
28. 5. 2014

Accepted:
14. 7. 2014

Sources

1. Lukáš M. Možnosti medikamentózní léčby u Crohnovy nemoci a ulcerózní kolitidy. Interní Med 2011; 13(11): 422–426.

2. Modigliani R, Mary JY, Simon JF et al. Clinical, biological, and endoscopic picture of attacks of Crohn’s disease. Evolution on prednisolone. Groupe d’Etude Therapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives. Gastroenterology 1990; 98(4): 811–818.

3. Landi B, Anh TN, Cortot A et al. Endoscopic monitoring of Crohn’s disease treatment: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The Groupe d’Etudes Therapeutiques des Affections Inflammatoires Digestives. Gastroenterology 1992; 102(5): 1647–1653.

4. Carbonnel F, Lavergne A, Lemann M et al. Colonoscopy of acute colitis. A safe and reliable tool for assessment of severity. Dig Dis Sci 1994; 39(7): 1550–1557.

5. Horsthuis K, Bipat S, Bennink RJ et al. Inflammatory bowel disease diagnosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Radiology 2008; 247(1): 64–79. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2471070611.

6. Parisinos CA, Mclntyre VE, Heron T et al. Magnetic resonance follow-through imaging for evaluation of disease activity in ileal Crohn’s disease: an observational, retrospective cohort study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010; 16(7): 1219–1226. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21168.

7. Horjus C et al. Magnetic resonance enterography in the assessment of the disease activity in Crohn’s disease. A retrospective study ECCO Congress, Prague 2010; P047.

8. Girlich C, Ott C, Strauch U et al. Clinical feature and bowel ultrasound in Crohn’s disease – does additional information from magnetic resonance imaging affect therapeutic approach and when does extended diagnostic investigation make sense? Digestion 2011; 83(1–2): 18–23. doi: 10.1159/000314590.

9. Marino M et al. Usefullness of ultrasound in small bowel Crohn’s disease: comparison with magnetic resonance for extension, complications and disease activity. Gut 2010; 59 (Suppl 3): A294.

10. Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P. Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut 2006; 55(3): 426–431.

11. Keshet R, Boursi B, Maoz R et al. Diagnostic and prognostic significance of serum C-reactive protein levels in patients admitted to the department of medicine. Am J Med Sci 2009; 337(4): 248–255. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31818af6de.

12. Vieira A, Fang CB, Rolim EG et al. Inflammatory bowel disease activity assessed by fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin: correlation with laboratory parameters, clinical, endoscopic and histological indexes. BMC Res Notes 2009; 2: 221. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-2-221.

13. Roseth AG, Aadland E, Grzyb K et al. Normalization of faecal calprotectin: a predictor of mucosal healing in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004; 39(10): 1017–1020.

14. Dignass A, Lindsay JO, Sturm A et al. Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 2: current management. J Crohns Colitis 2012; 6(10): 991–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.09.002.

15. Regueiro M, Kip KE, Schraut W et al. Crohn’s disease activity index does not correlate with endoscopic recurrence one year after ileocolonic resection. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011; 17(1): 118–126. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21355.

16. Dignass A, Van Assche G, Lindsay JO et al. The second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Current management. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4(1): 28–62. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2009.12.002.

17. Prokopová L, Ďuricová D, Bortlík M et al. Doporučené postupy pro podávání aminosalicylátů u nemocných s idiopatickými střevními záněty. Gastroent Hepatol 2012; 66(5): 391–400.

18. Akobeng AK, Gardener E. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn’s Disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (1): CD003715.

19. Ford AC, Kane SV, Khan KJ et al. Efficacy of 5-aminosalicylates in Crohn’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106(4): 617–629. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.71.

20. Ford AC, Khan KJ, Talley NJ et al. 5-aminosalicylates prevent relapse of Crohn’s disease after surgically induced remission:systematic review and meta--analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106(3): 413–420. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.317.

21. Gordon M, Naidoo K, Thomas AG et al. Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in Crohn’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (1): CD008414. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008414.pub2.

22. Lim WC, Hanauer S. Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (12): CD008870. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008870.

23. Steinhart AH, Forbes A, Mills EC et al. Systematic review: the potential influence of mesalazine formulation on maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25(12): 1389–1399.

24. Ďuricová D. Mesalazin u Crohnovy nemoci: obsoletní nebo neprávem opomíjená léčba? Gastroent Hepatol 2013; 67(1): 22–24.

25. Ananthakrishnan AN, McGinley EL, Binion DG. Does it matter where you are hospitalized for inflammatory bowel disease? A nationwide analysis of hospital volume. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103(11): 2789–2798. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.02054.x.

26. Nguyen GC, Steinhart AH. Nationwide patterns of hospitalizations to centers with high volume of admissions for inflammatory bowel disease and their impact on mortality. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008; 14(12): 1688–1694. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20526.

27. Burns EM, Bottle A, Aylin P et al. Volume analysis of outcome following restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 2011; 98(3): 408–417. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7312.

28. Kennedy ED, Rothwell DM, Cohen Z et al. Increased experience and surgical technique lead to improved outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a population-based study. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49(7): 958–965.