P0969Post-induction assessment of treatment response in a virtual biologic clinic can replace a standard outpatient clinician review without compromise in treatment outcomes.

Abstract Background A virtual biologic clinic (VBC) using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) retrieved through an online app represents a novel model of care to standard outpatient care. From October 2024, the VBC has replaced a standard clinician telephone/video/face-to-face outpatient appointment for the post-induction clinical assessment of patients with IBD starting a new advanced therapy in our unit. Their efficacy in facilitating treat-to-target medical optimisation and saving outpatient clinic appointment capacity is yet to be explored. Methods This was a retrospective observational study comparing outcomes in consecutive new IBD biologic starters who had their post-induction review in a standard outpatient clinic (before October 2024) or remotely via the VBC (from October 2024). Clinical remission was achieved if Harvey Bradshaw Index 5 or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index 3. Results Of 159 patients, 100 were monitored in the VBC and 59 had a standard outpatient clinic review after biologic initiation. 70% of the VBC patients completed the PROMs via the app and were more likely to be in clinical remission at 12 months compared to those who did not respond (60.0% vs. 36.7%; p = 0.032). There was no difference in median age or gender between these groups. Compared to standard outpatient care, assessment via the VBC was associated with a reduced mean number of outpatient clinic appointments (1.04 vs. 1.80; p 0.01) over the following year, and increased disease assessment investigations completed before the next outpatient appointment (66.7% vs. 33.9%; p 0.01), allowing for quicker treatment escalation at their next appointment (14.0% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.049). These outcomes improved if patients had completed the PROMs in time for the VBC. Documented 12-month biochemical, endoscopic or radiological remission rates did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts (47.0% VBC vs. 42.4% standard care). Conclusion A novel virtual biologic clinic model of care using remotely entered PROMs permits remote monitoring of a greater volume of patients and can save outpatient clinic capacity whilst not compromising on treatment outcomes. Conflict of interest: P Raman, Krithivasan: No conflict of interest Wimpory, Rachel: No conflict of interest Toft, Jennifer: Speaker consultation fees for Abbvie and Takeda Whitley, Lisa: Speaker fees and conference sponsorship - Takeda Speaker fee’s: Dr. Falk Dr. Kabir, Misha: Speaker consultation fees for Takeda, Ferring and Dr Falk