Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BackgroundEvidence supports use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in improving efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our objective was to assess attitudes and barriers towards TDM use with anti-TNF’s in the UK.MethodsA 17-question survey was distributed to members of the British Society of Gastroenterology by email.ResultsOf 243 respondents (51.6% male), 237 respondents met inclusion criteria. Of these, 46% were consultants (gastroenterologist, GI), 39.2% IBD nurse specialists (clinical nurse specialists, CNS), 14.8% registrars. TDM is used by 96.9% for secondary loss of response; 72.5% for primary non-response and 54.1% used TDM proactively. Barriers were time lag in receiving results (49.8%), lack of awareness of guidelines (46.4%) and cost (29.9%). Clinicians working at a teaching hospital (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.71 to 9.8), IBD CNS and GI registrars (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 10 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 7.2, respectively) were more likely to use TDM. Clinicians practising for >20 years (OR 4.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 41.8) and a large volume IBD practice (>50% IBD patients per month) were more likely to use TDM (OR 45.7, 95% CI 7.5 to 275). Proactive TDM, was more likely to be used in tertiary care (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.1), IBD CNS (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.1) and clinicians managing >50% IBD patients per month (OR 10.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 90.3). Clinicians with 5–9 years of experience in practice were more likely to use proactive TDM (OR 2.6 and CI 1.04 to 6.4).ConclusionValidation of point of care and lower cost assays, reduced time lag from test to result, lower cost of testing and dissemination of current recommendations may further optimise treatment strategies.

Original publication




Journal article


Frontline Gastroenterology



Publication Date





22 - 29