TOPLINE:

Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) was a preferred method for monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a higher percentage of US patients who had undergone the procedure than colonoscopy, but a larger portion found colonoscopy useful than found IUS useful.

METHODOLOGY:

• International studies have shown strong patient support for IUS over colonoscopy and other noninvasive monitoring strategies for monitoring IBD, but data on US patient preferences are limited.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional observational study at two academic centers in the northeastern US to assess patients’ experience with IUS and preferences for IBD monitoring.
• Adult patients attending routine IBD clinic visits were selected to receive IUS-driven or non-IUS-driven care at the discretion of their provider. Afterward, they completed a 20-question survey about various disease-monitoring modalities: IUS, colonoscopy, other cross-sectional imaging, blood work, and stool studies.
• The primary outcome was patient preferences for modalities of disease assessment, evaluated through Likert-scale questions on preference, discomfort, and perceived usefulness in terms of accuracy, peace of mind, and/or disease activity understanding.
• Of the 326 patients with IBD (209 with Crohn’s disease and 117 with ulcerative colitis), 147 patients (median age, 39 years; 43.5% male) received IUS-driven care and 179 patients (median age, 45 years; 45.8% male) received non-IUS-driven care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 219 participants who’d been exposed to IUS at the visit or previously, 60.7% said it was “definitely” a preferred modality compared with 22.4% each for colonoscopy and stool studies, 51.1% for blood work, and 21% for other cross-sectional imaging.
• In the IUS-exposed group, 69.9% reported no discomfort with IUS compared with 6.8% with colonoscopy, 53% with blood work, 37.4% with stool studies, and 38.8% with other cross-sectional imaging.
• Colonoscopy was deemed “completely” useful by 69.4% of IUS-exposed participants compared with IUS by 46.1%, blood work by 43.8%, stool studies by 35.6%, and other cross-sectional imaging by 36.1%.
• When comparing IUS-exposed patients with the 107 IUS-naive patients, the only statistically significant difference was in the percentages who said colonoscopy was definitely a preferred modality (22.4% vs 37.4%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“IUS is highly acceptable, well tolerated, and preferred by our US population. These findings support the implementation of IUS as a patient-centric monitoring tool,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Emily Gore, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included generally high rates of patient engagement and reported medication adherence, as well as anecdotally high baseline health literacy. Patient engagement and overall experience with IUS may vary depending on the provider performing the exam. The study did not assess clinical outcomes or the cost-effectiveness of IUS as a monitoring tool.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was received for conducting the study. The authors declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.