Burden of disease and adaptation to life in patients with Crohn's perianal fistula: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Perianal fistulas are a challenging manifestation of Crohn's disease. Best medical and surgical therapy results in only about a third of patients remaining in remission at one year on maintenance treatment and sustained healing is often elusive. There is little published data on patient perspective of living with the condition or coping strategies in the face of non-curative/non-definitive treatment. We aimed to understand the experience of living with perianal fistula(s) and their impact on quality of life and routine functioning. METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit participants with current / previous diagnosis of Crohn's anal fistulas, from national IBD / bowel disease charities. The "standards for reporting qualitative research" (SRQR) recommendations were followed. Unstructured individual face-to-face interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Early themes were reviewed by the study team including patient advocates, clinicians and qualitative researchers. RESULTS: Twelve interviews were conducted, achieving apparent data saturation. Three broad themes were uncovered: Burden of symptoms; Burden of treatment; and Impact on emotional, physical and social well-being. Each included several sub-themes, with considerable interplay between these. The impact of perianal fistula(s) on patients with CD is intense and wide reaching, negatively affecting intimate, close and social relationships. Fistulas cause losses in life and work-related opportunities, and treatments can be difficult to tolerate. CONCLUSION: Crohn's perianal fistulas exert a heavy negative physical and emotional impact on patients. These findings will inform development of a patient reported outcome measure to assess treatment effectiveness and quality of life for patients living with this challenging condition.

Early Detection for Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the early detection of colorectal cancer in four tiers to clinicians, patients, and caregivers. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings. RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more. CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

What Are the Top 10 Research Questions in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Priority Setting Partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many uncertainties remain regarding optimal therapies and strategies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Setting research priorities addressing therapies requires a partnership between health care professionals, patients and organisations supporting patients. We aimed to use the structure of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, which has been used in other disease areas, to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: The James Lind Priority Setting Partnership uses methods agreed and adopted in other disease areas to work with patients and clinicians: to identify uncertainties about treatments; to agree by consensus a prioritised list of uncertainties for research; then to translate these uncertainties into research questions which are amenable to hypothesis testing; and finally to take results to research commissioning bodies to be considered for funding. RESULTS: A total of 1636 uncertainties were collected in the initial survey from 531 respondents, which included 22% health care professionals and 78% patients and carers. Using the rigorously applied processes of the priority setting partnership, this list was distilled down to the top 10 research priorities for inflammatory bowel disease. The top priorities were: identifying treatment strategies to optimise efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness; and stratifying patients with regard to their disease course and treatment response. Diet and symptom control [pain, incontinence and fatigue] were also topics which were prioritised. CONCLUSIONS: A partnership involving multidisciplinary clinicians, patients and organisations supporting patients has identified the top 10 research priorities in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.