4.1 Article

Granulocyte and monocyte apheresis in inflammatory bowel disease: The patients' point of view

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA
Volume 41, Issue 7, Pages 423-431

Publisher

ELSEVIER DOYMA SL
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2018.04.007

Keywords

Crohn's disease; Granulocyte-monocyte apheresis; Questionnaires; Ulcerative colitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Granulocyte and monocyte apheresis is the main non-pharmacological treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but we do not know how well accepted it is by patients in our setting. Aim: To determine how granulocyte and monocyte apheresis is perceived by patients in clinical practice in Spain. Methods: Outpatients treated with granulocyte and monocyte apheresis in five IBD Units in Spain were asked to fill in a 14-item questionnaire. Results: Fifty-two patients completed the questionnaire (88% ulcerative colitis, 12% Crohn's disease; 44% female; age 35 years [IQR 23-51]). Granulocyte and monocyte apheresis was generally well tolerated and well accepted. Very few of the participants regarded the length of the sessions as a limitation. The gastrointestinal symptoms, however, were a frequent concern, both in terms of attending to receive treatment and during the sessions. Overall, 44% were satisfied with the treatment effectiveness. Sixty percent (60%) claimed to be satisfied with the therapy overall, but this was influenced by the patients' clinical response to the therapy.Eighty-two percent (82%) of participants said they would agree to be treated with this technique again in the future, regardless of the response to the treatment. Conclusions: Granulocyte and monocyte apheresis is well tolerated and accepted by patients with IBD. Although we found no significant differences according to type of IBD or apheresis regimen, patient perception was affected by clinical effectiveness. (C) 2018 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available