Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.

Clinical Outcomes of Covid-19 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 risk and disease course in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to assess the clinical presentation, disease course, and outcomes of COVID-19 in IBD patients. Second, we determined COVID-19 incidences in IBD patients and compared this with the general population. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, nationwide IBD cohort study in The Netherlands and identified patients with COVID-19. First, we assessed the COVID-19 disease course and outcomes. Second, we compared COVID-19 incidences between our IBD study cohort and the general Dutch population. RESULTS: We established an IBD cohort of 34 763 patients. COVID-19 was diagnosed in 100/34 763 patients [0.29%]; 20/100 of these patients [20%] had severe COVID-19 defined as admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and/or death. Hospitalisation occurred in 59/100 [59.0%] patients and 13/100 [13.0%] died. All patients who died had comorbidities and all but one were ≥65 years old. In line, we identified ≥1 comorbidity as an independent risk factor for hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 4.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-11.17,; p = 0.004). Incidences of COVID-19 between the IBD study cohort and the general population were comparable (287.6 [95% CI 236.6-349.7] versus 333.0 [95% CI 329.3-336.7] per 100000 patients, respectively; p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 cases with IBD and COVID-19, 20% developed severe COVID-19, 59% were hospitalised and 13% died. A comparable COVID-19 risk was found between the IBD cohort [100/34 763 = 0.29%] and the general Dutch population. The presence of ≥1 comorbidities was an independent risk factor for hospitalisation due to COVID-19.

Can the Asthma Control Questionnaire be used to differentiate between patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms? A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of adult patients with asthma are inadequately controlled despite the availability of effective asthma treatment. Patients and physicians seem to overestimate the level of asthma control. OBJECTIVE: The current study explores whether valid differentiation is possible between asthma patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms, on the basis of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). METHODS: In this multi-centre, cross-sectional study, patients were classified according to Global Initiative for Asthma criteria into levels of asthma symptom control based on a diary card registration. We defined Step 1 ('well controlled' asthma symptoms), Step 2 ('moderately controlled'), Step 3 ('poorly controlled') and Step 4 ('very poorly controlled'). These control steps were related with the sum score of the ACQ. RESULTS: From 108 asthma patients complete data were obtained. The Step 1 subgroup comprised 17 patients; Step 2, 12 patients; Step 3, 22 patients; and Step 4, 57 patients. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that the optimal ACQ sum score cut-off value to differentiate between Step 1 and Steps 2, 3 and 4 was three points (sensitivity: 84%, specificity: 76%). For Steps 1 and 2 versus Steps 3 and 4, this was four points (sensitivity: 77%, specificity: 59%). For Steps 1, 2 and 3 versus Step 4, this was six points (sensitivity: 70%, specificity: 74%). CONCLUSION: Our results show that discrimination between asthma patients with controlled and uncontrolled asthma symptoms, based on the ACQ, is possible with a reasonable margin of test inaccuracy. Thus, the ACQ may be an important tool for health care professionals who aim to optimize the level of asthma control in their patient population.