4.5 Article

IBDoc Canadian User Performance Evaluation

Journal

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 1107-1114

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izy357

Keywords

IBDoc; biomarker; home-based fecal calprotectin monitoring

Funding

  1. BUHLMANN Laboratories AG, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a stool biomarker that has been shown to be sensitive and specific for mucosal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The test is limited by the requirement for patients to collect and return stool samples. A home-based FC test may improve test adherence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usability of the IBDoc, a home-based FC measuring test, and to determine the accuracy of results compared with traditional lab-based ELISA values. Methods Patients were prospectively enrolled from 3 tertiary sites across Canada between May and August 2017. Patients completed a questionnaire establishing ease-of-use of the IBDoc. Patients completed a FC measurement using the IBDoc, and results were compared with an ELISA-determined FC measurement on the same stool sample. Results Sixty-one participants were enrolled in the study (29 CD, 32 UC). Seventy-nine percent of patients (48 of 61) agreed that the IBDoc was easy to use, with 85% (52 of 61) of patients strongly agreeing that they were willing use the home kit in the future. The IBDoc and ELISA measurement comparison showed an 88% agreement across all values. There were no false positives or negatives using qualitative comparison. Conclusions The home-based IBDoc FC measuring test is acceptable to patients and correlates extremely well with the standard ELISA-determined FC value. The IBDoc enables clinicians to more easily adopt a treat-to-target approach, improve long-term outcomes, and patients' quality of life with IBD. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03408249.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available