First explicit criteria to decide on the appropriateness of therapy of ulcerative colitis: the European EPATUC panel
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_B8F0572E5EC6
Type
Inproceedings: an article in a conference proceedings.
Publication sub-type
Poster: Summary – with images – on one page of the results of a researche project. The summaries of the poster must be entered in "Abstract" and not "Poster".
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
First explicit criteria to decide on the appropriateness of therapy of ulcerative colitis: the European EPATUC panel
Title of the conference
7th Congress of ECCO, European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation
Address
Barcelona, Spain, February 16-18, 2012
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2012
Volume
6
Series
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Pages
S141
Language
english
Abstract
Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease with
a wide variety of treatment options many of which are not
evidence based. Supplementing available guidelines, which
are often broadly defined, consensus-based and generally not
tailored to specifically reflect the individual patient situation,
we developed explicit appropriateness criteria to assist, and
improve treatment decisions.
Methods: We used the RAND appropriateness method which
does not force consensus. An extensive literature review was
compiled based on and supplementing, where necessary, the
ECCO UC 2011 guidelines. EPATUC (endorsed by ECCO) was
formed by 7 gastroenterologists, 2 surgeons and 2 general
practitioners from throughout Europe. Clinical scenarios
reflecting practice were rated on a 9-point scale from 1
(extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate), based
on the expert's experience and the available literature. After
extensive discussion, all scenarios were re-rated at a two-day
panel meeting. Median and disagreement (D) were used to
categorize ratings into 3 categories: appropriate (A), uncertain
(U) and inappropriate (I).
Results: 718 clinical scenarios were rated, structured in
13 main clinical presentations: not refractory (n = 64) or
refractory (n = 33) proctitis, mild to moderate left-sided (n = 72)
or extensive (n = 48) colitis, severe colitis (n = 36), steroid-
dependant colitis (n = 36), steroid-refractory colitis (n = 55),
acute pouchitis (n = 96), maintenance of remission (n = 248),
colorectal cancer prevention (n = 9) and fulminant colitis
(n = 9). Overall, 100 indications were judged appropriate (14%),
129 uncertain (18%) and 489 inappropriate (68%). Disagreement
between experts was very low (6%).
Conclusions: For the very first time, explicit appropriateness
criteria for therapy of UC were developed that allow both
specific and rapid therapeutic decision making and prospective
assessment of treatment appropriateness. Comparison of these
detailed scenarios with patient profiles encountered in the
Swiss IBD cohort study indicates good concordance. EPATUC
criteria will be freely accessible on the internet (epatuc.ch)
a wide variety of treatment options many of which are not
evidence based. Supplementing available guidelines, which
are often broadly defined, consensus-based and generally not
tailored to specifically reflect the individual patient situation,
we developed explicit appropriateness criteria to assist, and
improve treatment decisions.
Methods: We used the RAND appropriateness method which
does not force consensus. An extensive literature review was
compiled based on and supplementing, where necessary, the
ECCO UC 2011 guidelines. EPATUC (endorsed by ECCO) was
formed by 7 gastroenterologists, 2 surgeons and 2 general
practitioners from throughout Europe. Clinical scenarios
reflecting practice were rated on a 9-point scale from 1
(extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate), based
on the expert's experience and the available literature. After
extensive discussion, all scenarios were re-rated at a two-day
panel meeting. Median and disagreement (D) were used to
categorize ratings into 3 categories: appropriate (A), uncertain
(U) and inappropriate (I).
Results: 718 clinical scenarios were rated, structured in
13 main clinical presentations: not refractory (n = 64) or
refractory (n = 33) proctitis, mild to moderate left-sided (n = 72)
or extensive (n = 48) colitis, severe colitis (n = 36), steroid-
dependant colitis (n = 36), steroid-refractory colitis (n = 55),
acute pouchitis (n = 96), maintenance of remission (n = 248),
colorectal cancer prevention (n = 9) and fulminant colitis
(n = 9). Overall, 100 indications were judged appropriate (14%),
129 uncertain (18%) and 489 inappropriate (68%). Disagreement
between experts was very low (6%).
Conclusions: For the very first time, explicit appropriateness
criteria for therapy of UC were developed that allow both
specific and rapid therapeutic decision making and prospective
assessment of treatment appropriateness. Comparison of these
detailed scenarios with patient profiles encountered in the
Swiss IBD cohort study indicates good concordance. EPATUC
criteria will be freely accessible on the internet (epatuc.ch)
Open Access
Yes
Create date
14/02/2013 17:10
Last modification date
20/08/2019 16:27
Usage data
