Comparing the resource implications of old and new colorectal adenoma surveillance guidelines in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The latest update to the Australian adenoma surveillance guideline in 2018 introduced a novel risk stratification system with updated surveillance recommendations. The resource implications of adopting this new system are unclear. AIMS: To quanitfy the resource demands of adopting new over old adenoma surveillance guidelines. METHODS: We studied data from 2443 patients undergoing colonoscopies, in which a clinically significant lesion was identified in their latest, or previous procedure(s) across five Australian hospitals. We excluded procedures with inflammatory bowel disease, new or prior history of colorectal cancer or resection, inadequate bowel preparation and incomplete procedures. Old and new Australian surveillance intervals were calculated according to the number, size and histological characteristics of lesions identified. We used these data to compare the rate of procedures according to each guideline. RESULTS: Based on the procedures for 766 patients, the new surveillance guidelines significantly increased the number of procedures allocated an interval of 1 year (relative risk (RR): 1.57, P = 0.009) and 10 years (RR: 3.83, P < 0.00001) and reduced those allocated to half a year (RR: 0.08, P = 0.00219), 3 years (RR: 0.51, P < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR: 0.59, P < 0.00001). Overall, this reduced the relative number of surveillance procedures by 21% over 10 years (25.92 vs 32.78 procedures/100 patient-years), which increased to 22% after excluding patients 75 or older at the time of surveillance (19.9 vs 25.65 procedures/100 patient-years). CONCLUSION: The adoption of the latest Australian adenoma surveillance guidelines can reduce demand for surveillance colonoscopy by more than a fifth (21-22%) over 10 years.

The basis and implications of diverging approaches to colorectal adenoma surveillance in the West.

Algorithms for the surveillance of colorectal adenomas have recently undergone revision in Australia and abroad. Despite a shared evidence base, significant differences are observed and optimal intervals for surveillance remain controversial. We sought to explore their differences in relation to current evidence, practical aspects and how we may improve our own approach to adenoma surveillance in Australia.

Quality of colonoscopy performed by medical or surgical specialists and trainees in five Australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring colonoscopy procedure quality is vital to the success of screening and surveillance programmes for bowel cancer in Australia. However, the data on the performance of quality metrics, through adequate adenoma detection, bowel preparation, and procedure completion rates, in the Australian public sector is limited. Understanding these can inform quality improvement to further strengthen our capacity for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer. AIM: To determine the quality of colonoscopy in Australian teaching hospitals and their association with proceduralist specialty, trainee involvement, and location. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 2443 consecutive colonoscopy procedure reports from 1 January to 1 April, 2018 from five public teaching tertiary hospitals in Australia (median 60 years old, 49% male). Data for bowel preparation quality, procedure completion rates, and detection rates of clinically significant adenomas, conventional adenomas, and serrated lesions was collected and compared to national criteria for quality in colonoscopy. Participating hospital, proceduralist specialty, and trainee involvement indicators were used for stratification. Data was analysed using Chi-squared tests of independence, Mann-Whitney U, One-way ANOVA, and multivariate binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Fifty-two point two percent (n = 1276) and 43.3% (n = 1057) were performed by medical and surgical proceduralists respectively, whilst 29.8% (n = 728) involved a trainee. Inadequate bowel preparation affected 7.3% of all procedures. The procedure completion rate was 95.1%, which increased to 97.5% after adjustment for bowel preparation quality. The pooled cancer, adenoma, and serrated lesion detection rates for all five hospitals were 3.5%, 40%, and 5.9% respectively. Assessed hospitals varied significantly by patient age (P < 0.001), work-force composition (P < 0.001), adequacy of bowel preparation (P < 0.001), and adenoma detection rate (P < 0.001). Two hospitals (40%) did not meet all national criteria for quality, due to a procedure completion rate of 94.5% or serrated lesion detection rate of 2.6%. Although lower than the other hospitals, the difference was not significant. Compared with surgical specialists, procedures performed by medical specialists involved older patients [65 years (inter-quartile range, IQR 58-73) vs 64 years (IQR 56-71); P = 0.04] and were associated with a higher adenoma detection rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.53; confidence interval: 1.21-1.94; P < 0.001]. Procedures involving trainee proceduralists were not associated with differences in the detection of cancer, adenoma, or serrated lesions, compared with specialists, or according to their medical or surgical background. On multivariate analysis, cancer detection was positively associated with patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001) and negatively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 0.54; P = 0.04). Conventional adenoma detection rates were independently associated with increasing patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001), positively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 1.41; P = 0.002) and negatively associated with male gender (OR 0.53; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in the quality of colonoscopy in Australia exist, even when national benchmarks are achieved. The role of possible contributing factors, like procedural specialty and patient gender need further evaluation.

eHealth Technologies for Screening, Diagnosis, and Management of Viral Hepatitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic viral hepatitis is a leading cause of worldwide liver-related morbidity and mortality, despite the availability of effective treatments that reduce or prevent complications in most patients. Electronic-health (eHealth) technologies have potential to intervene along the whole cascade of care. We aimed to summarize available literature on eHealth interventions with respect to conventional screening, diagnostic and treatment outcomes in chronic hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV). METHODS: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and international conference abstracts, including studies published from 2009 - 2020. Overall 80 studies were included, covering electronic medical record (EMR) interventions (n=39), telemedicine (n=20), mHealth (n=5), devices (n=4), clinical decision support (n=3), web-based (n=5), social media (n=1) and electronic communication (n=3). RESULTS: Compared to standard care, EMR alerts increase screening rates in eligible populations including birth cohort screening in HCV, universal HCV screening in Emergency Departments, ethnic groups with high HBV prevalence, and HBV screening prior to immunosuppression. Direct messaging alerts to providers and automated testing may have a greater effect. No significant difference was found in sustained virological response outcomes between telemedicine and face-to-face management for community, rural and prison cohorts in HCV in the direct acting antiviral era of treatment, with higher patient satisfaction in telemedicine groups. CONCLUSIONS: EMR alerts significantly increase screening rates in eligible cohorts in both chronic HBV and HCV. Telemedicine is equally efficacious to face-to-face care in HCV treatment. Other eHealth technologies show promise; however rigorous studies are lacking.

Outcomes of community-based hepatitis C treatment by general practitioners and nurses in Australia through remote specialist consultation.

BACKGROUND: A unique model of care was adopted in Australia following introduction of universal subsidised direct-acting antiviral (DAA) access in 2016 in order to encourage rapid scale-up of treatment. Community-based medical practitioners and integrated hepatitis nurses initiated DAA treatment with remote hepatitis specialist approval of the planned treatment without physical review. AIMS: To evaluate outcomes of community-based treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) through this remote consultation process in the first 12 months of this model of care. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing community-based HCV treatment from general practitioners and integrated hepatitis nurse consultants through the remote consultation model in three state jurisdictions in Australia from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2017. RESULTS: Sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) was confirmed in 383 (65.1%) of 588 subjects intended for treatment with a median follow-up time of 12 months (interquartile range 9-14 months). The SVR12 test was not performed in 159 (27.0%) of 588 and 307 (52.2%) of 588 did not have liver biochemistry rechecked following treatment. Subjects who completed follow up exhibited high SVR12 rates (383/392; 97.7%). Nurse-led treatment was associated with higher confirmation of SVR12 (73.7% vs 62.4%; P = 0.01) and liver biochemistry testing post treatment (57.5% vs 45.0%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Community-based management of HCV through remote specialist consultation may be an effective model of care. Failure to check SVR12, recheck liver biochemistry and appropriate surveillance in patients with cirrhosis may emerge as significant issues requiring further support, education and refinement of the model to maximise effectiveness of future elimination efforts.