Colonoscopy quality across Europe: a report of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.

Background and study aims The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires. Methods The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites. Results We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received. Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29 % of institutions and by 34 % of practitioners; PDR by 42 % and 47 %, CIR by 62 % and 64 %, bowel preparation quality by 56 % and 76 %, respectively. Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2 %, CIR 73.4 %, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2 % of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion ≥ 20 mm reporting tattooing. Conclusions Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

Bowel-cleansing efficacy of the 1L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 (PLENVU) in patient subgroups in two phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential for visualization of the colonic mucosa to maximize adenoma and polyp detection. The risk of inadequate bowel cleansing is heightened if the patient is older, male, overweight, and has comorbidities, such as diabetes. This post hoc analysis of the combined MORA and NOCT clinical trials explores the efficacy of evening/morning split-dose regimens of NER1006 (PLENVU®, Norgine Ltd), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation, to evaluate its bowel-cleansing efficacy in patients at risk for inadequate cleansing. METHODS: Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomized to receive evening/morning split-dosing of either NER1006, 2-liter (2L) PEG and ascorbate, or oral sulfate solution (OSS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed by treatment-blinded central readers using the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). RESULTS: Split-dose NER1006 was associated with high levels of cleansing, ranging between 87.0% and 94.0% across all patient subtypes (n = 551), including patients with obesity or diabetes. However, patients aged >65 years and <45 years showed significantly greater rates of successful cleansing than patients aged 45-65 years (94.0% versus 94.2% versus 87.0%, p = 0.002). The high-risk patient subgroup, which included obese males aged ⩾60 years, had significantly improved overall and high-quality bowel-cleansing success rates of 100% (33/33) and 72.7% (27/33) on the HCS with NER1006, compared with 86.7% (26/30) and 50% (15/30) with the comparator solutions (p = 0.015 and p = 0.033, respectively). In this high-risk subgroup, adenoma detection was greater per patient receiving NER1006 versus the comparator group (1.82 versus 0.93, p = 0.041). NER1006 was the only treatment that enabled the detection of patients with ⩾5 adenomas [9.1% (3/33) versus 0/30, p = 0.047]. CONCLUSION: NER1006 effectively cleansed a broad range of patients and offered superior bowel cleansing versus 2LPEG/OSS in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Future research should establish whether more effective cleansing also enables improved adenoma detection. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: A low-volume bowel preparation solution to better detect lesions associated with colorectal cancer during colonoscopyColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world. Obese men over the age of 65 years are at particularly increased risk of developing CRC. If the changes in their large intestine (colon) could be seen more clearly during a colonoscopy (where a small camera is inserted via the anus to examine the bowels from the inside), patients who need treatment would be diagnosed earlier, thus improving their chances of survival. In this paper we discuss the use of a bowel preparation solution that is more convenient for patients (less to drink) but also cleans bowels more effectively, meaning more lesions are detected than when other solutions are used. This improved cleansing, and thus better visualization, occurred in a range of patients, including those at higher risk of CRC, such as older, overweight men.

Utilisation and Safety of Polyethylene Glycol 3350 With Electrolytes in Children Under 2 Years: A Retrospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, Movicol paediatric plain (polyethylene glycol 3350 with electrolytes [PEG 3350+E], Norgine, UK), is licensed for chronic constipation in children 2 -11 years of age and faecal impaction (FI) from 5 years. This study aimed to investigate usage and characterise the risk profile in children under 2 years of age using PEG 3350+E in the UK. METHODS: Retrospective, single exposure cohort study, with patients identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD. Patients first prescribed PEG 3350+E under 2 years of age for the treatment of constipation or FI, between September 2003 and July 2019, were included. RESULTS: There were 13,235 patients with a constipation indication and 40 patients with FI. For the constipation cohort: median age of PEG 3350+E first prescription was 1.2 years [interquartile range (IQR) 0.9, 1.6] and 68.4% had one treatment episode (TE). The mean duration of exposure, in the first TE, was 88.9 days. The most common total daily dose was one sachet (6.9 g).In terms of incident events on treatment, 0.5% of patients had abdominal pain, 3.0% had diarrhoea (may be attributed to treatment) and 4.1% had vomiting. 2.0% had signs/symptoms which could (in extreme cases) be associated with electrolyte disturbance, however, none had abnormal electrolyte values. DISCUSSION: The safety aspect of this study did not identify any signals of concern in the constipation cohort. The number of patients in the FI cohort were too small for robust conclusions. If information were available, then a safety study would ideally assess treatment intake per kilogram, including electrolyte intake, before reaching safety conclusions. Nevertheless, these data contribute to real-world evidence on the use of PEG 3350+E in this population.

A survey on colonoscopy shows poor understanding of its protective value and widespread misconceptions across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. STUDY AIM: We conducted an online survey of the public in five European Union countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK), with the aim of understanding public knowledge of, perceptions of, and attitudes towards, colonoscopy and bowel preparation, amongst colonoscopy-naïve respondents. Attitudes towards colonoscopy were also gathered from colonoscopy-experienced patients. METHODS: Survey answers were gathered from 2,500 colonoscopy-naïve respondents and 500 colonoscopy-experienced patients, divided equally between countries. RESULTS: Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. DISCUSSION: There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques. CONCLUSION: Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.

The Model of Mortality with Incident Cirrhosis (MoMIC) and the model of Long-term Outlook of Mortality in Cirrhosis (LOMiC).

The purpose of this study was to produce two statistical survival models in those with cirrhosis utilising only routine parameters, including non-liver-related clinical factors that influence survival. The first model identified and utilised factors impacting short-term survival to 90-days post incident diagnosis, and a further model characterised factors that impacted survival following this acute phase. Data were from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. Incident cases in patients ≥18 years were identified between 1998 and 2014. Patients that had prior history of cancer or had received liver transplants prior were excluded. Model-1 used a logistic regression model to predict mortality. Model-2 used data from those patients who survived 90 days, and used an extension of the Cox regression model, adjusting for time-dependent covariables. At 90 days, 23% of patients had died. Overall median survival was 3.7 years. Model-1: numerous predictors, prior comorbidities and decompensating events were incorporated. All comorbidities contributed to increased odds of death, with renal disease having the largest adjusted odds ratio (OR = 3.35, 95%CI 2.97-3.77). Model-2: covariables included cumulative admissions for liver disease-related events and admissions for infections. Significant covariates were renal disease (adjusted hazard ratio (HR = 2.89, 2.47-3.38)), elevated bilirubin levels (aHR = 1.38, 1.26-1.51) and low sodium levels (aHR = 2.26, 1.84-2.78). An internal validation demonstrated reliability of both models. In conclusion: two survival models that included parameters commonly recorded in routine clinical practice were generated that reliably forecast the risk of death in patients with cirrhosis: in the acute, post diagnosis phase, and following this critical, 90 day phase. This has implications for practice and helps better forecast the risk of mortality from cirrhosis using routinely recorded parameters without inputs from specialists.

A systematic review and cost analysis of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel cleansing in five European countries.

Background: Colonoscopies are carried out for a range of reasons including for the detection of colon cancer and investigation of abdominal and bowel related symptoms. Inadequate preparation can increase the burden of repeat procedures.Methods: A systematic review aimed to identify the rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel preparation in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The information obtained populated a decision analytic model to estimate the cost implications of inadequate bowel cleansing in the same five countries. The model explored scenarios by comparing one and two-litre polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation.Results: The systematic review identified 14 eligible studies reporting on the proportion of patients with inadequate bowel cleansing indicated for a repeat procedure. Data were available for Italy (27.5%-35.9%), Spain (63%) and the UK (24.5%) only. The decision analytic model demonstrates that improving the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing at first colonoscopy is likely to generate cost savings.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, increasing the proportion of people who have adequate bowel cleansing at index colonoscopy will likely have financial benefits in Italy, Spain and the UK. A paucity of data, for France and Germany, limits the robustness of conclusions in these countries.

Characteristics of right-sided colonic neoplasia and colonoscopy barriers limiting their early detection and prognosis: a review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy provides less protection from colorectal cancer in the right colon than the left. Areas covered: This review examines patient outcomes and colonoscopy success rates to identify factors that limit the protective effect of colonoscopy in the right colon. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for literature from 2000 onwards, on the long-term outcomes and differences in screening practice between the right and left colon. In total, 12 systematic reviews (including nine meta-analyses) and 44 primary data records were included. Differences in patient outcomes and colonoscopy practice were identified between the right and left colon, suggesting that several factors, many of which disproportionally affect the right colon, impact lesion detection rates. Shorter withdrawal times reduce detection rates, while longer times significantly increase detection; mostly of adenomas in the right colon. Colonoscope attachments often only show a significant improvement in detection rates in the right colon, suggesting detection is more challenging due to visibility of the right colonic mucosa. Higher bowel cleansing grades significantly improve detection rates in the right colon compared to the left. Expert commentary: These findings confirm the need for continued improvement of colonoscopy effectiveness, and obligatory quality assessment, overall and especially in the right colon.

Patient-practitioner perception gap in treatment-induced nausea and vomiting.

This UK cohort analysis of a European survey evaluated the differences between health professionals and cancer patients regarding the perceived incidence, impact and drug management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV/RINV). The UK healthcare system is unique in that it has dedicated oncology clinical nurse specialists. The analysis found that more patients experienced nausea following their most recent treatment cycle than vomiting. Health professionals overestimated the incidence of CINV/RINV but underestimated its impact on patients' daily lives, particularly in cases of mild and moderate nausea/vomiting. The level of antiemetic cover initiated and degree of symptom control was often suboptimal. Patients under-reported symptoms, primarily because they considered nausea/vomiting an inevitable side effect of treatment. Altogether, 42% of patients reported full adherence to their antiemetic regimen. Leading factors for non-adherence included not having a 'preventive mindset', low symptom severity and a reluctance to increase pill burden. In conclusion, there is a perceptual gap between health professionals and patients around experiences of CINV/RINV. Advances in management depend on enhancing health professional-patient communication, and reporting and understanding nausea as a distinct issue.

Impact and management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the perceptual gap between oncologists/oncology nurses and patients: a cross-sectional multinational survey.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV/RINV) can affect half of oncology patients, significantly impacting daily life. Nausea without vomiting has only recently been thought of as a condition in its own right. As such, the incidence of nausea is often underestimated. This survey investigated the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV in patients compared with estimations of physicians/oncology nurses to determine if there is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients. METHODS: An online research survey of physicians, oncology nurses and patients was conducted across five European countries. Participants had to have experience prescribing/recommending or have received anti-emetic medication for CINV/RINV treatment. Questionnaires assessed the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV, anti-emetic usage and compliance, and attribute importance of anti-emetic medication. RESULTS: A total of 947 (375 physicians, 186 oncology nurses and 386 patients) participated in this survey. The incidence of nausea was greater than vomiting: 60 % of patients reported nausea alone, whereas 18 % reported vomiting. Physicians and oncology nurses overestimated the incidence of CINV/RINV but underestimated its impact on patients' daily lives. Only 38 % of patients reported full compliance with physicians'/oncology nurses' guidelines when self-administering anti-emetic medication. Leading factors for poor compliance included reluctance to add to a pill burden and fear that swallowing itself would induce nausea/vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: There is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients in terms of the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV. This may lead to sub-optimal prescription of anti-emetics and therefore management of CINV/RINV. Minimising the pill burden and eliminating the requirement to swallow medication could improve poor patient compliance with anti-emetic regimens.