Use of Standardized Inflammatory Bowel Disease Endoscopy Scores in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment targets include mucosal healing based on standardized endoscopic scoring systems. The rates and ease of use of these scoring systems in practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess the rates and factors associated with the use of IBD endoscopic scoring systems in practice from IBD LIVE attendees. METHODS: IBD Live is an international case-based conference focusing on the management of patients with IBD. We created a web-based survey consisting of 38 questions on the frequency and ease of use of various IBD endoscopic scores. This survey was emailed to the IBD Live listserv in March 2022 with a second email sent 14 days later. We included only respondents who are currently performing endoscopy. Continuous variables were analyzed using an unpaired student’s t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. RESULTS: There were 65 responses out of 170 (38.2% response rate) regular attendees. Eleven responses were excluded (4 with no response on the use of endoscopy scores, and 7 were not performing endoscopy). Of the respondents, 72.2% are from the United States, 70.4% are adult gastroenterologists, 53.9% in academic practice, and 40.7% in practice for ≥15 years. Of the endoscopy scores used ≥50% of the time, 74.1% were using the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES), 72.3% using the Rutgeerts Score, 61.2% using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease, and 28.6% using the Pouchitis Disease Activity Index. Attending IBD LIVE ≥ monthly (P = .028), attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .020), and having the scoring system incorporated into the endoscopy documentation software (P = .002) were associated with more consistent use of the MES. Attending IBD Live at least monthly (P = .026), having an IBD volume of ≥50% (P = .011), and attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .004) was associated with more frequent use of the Rutgeerts score. There were no factors that increased the use of other endoscopic scores. CONCLUSIONS: The MES and the Rutgeerts score are more commonly used with much lower rates of use of endoscopic scores for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis. The use of these endoscopy scores is more common among those who regularly attend IBD conferences, have higher volume IBD practices, and have these scoring systems incorporated into endoscopy software. Further evaluation of barriers to use and ways to improve utilization of endoscopic scoring for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis is needed.