Double-contrast barium enema is no longer justified as a backup examination for colonoscopy in the population screening program: Population study in an organized fecal immunochemical test-based screening program.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Currently, some countries still acknowledge double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) as a backup confirmatory examination when colonoscopy is not feasible or incomplete in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. This study aims to compare the performance of colonoscopy and DCBE in terms of the risk of incident CRC after negative results in the fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based Taiwan Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. METHODS: Subjects who had positive FITs and received confirmatory exams, either colonoscopy or DCBE, without the findings of neoplastic lesions from 2004 to 2013 in the screening program comprised the study cohort. Both the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts were followed until the end of 2018 and linked to the Taiwan Cancer Registry to identify incident CRC cases. Multivariate analysis was conducted to compare the risk of incident CRC in both subcohorts after controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: A total of 102 761 colonoscopies and 5885 DCBEs were performed after positive FITs without neoplastic findings during the study period. By the end of 2018, 2113 CRCs (2.7 per 1000 person-years) and 368 CRCs (7.6 per 1000 person-years) occurred in the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts, respectively. After adjusting for major confounders, DCBE had a significantly higher risk of incident CRC than colonoscopy, with an adjusted HR of 2.81 (95% CI = 2.51-3.14). CONCLUSIONS: In the FIT screening program, using DCBE as a backup examination was associated with a nearly threefold risk of incident CRC compared with colonoscopy, demonstrating that it is no longer justified as a backup examination for incomplete colonoscopy.

14 day sequential therapy versus 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy containing high-dose esomeprazole in the first-line and second-line treatment of Helicobacter pylori: a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomized trial.

Background: Whether extending the treatment length and the use of high-dose esomeprazole may optimize the efficacy of Helicobacter pylori eradication remains unknown. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of optimized 14 day sequential therapy and 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy containing high-dose esomeprazole in first-line therapy. Methods: We recruited 620 adult patients (≥20 years of age) with H. pylori infection naive to treatment in this multicentre, open-label, randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 day sequential therapy or 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy, both containing esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily. Those who failed after 14 day sequential therapy received rescue therapy with 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy and vice versa. Our primary outcome was the eradication rate in the first-line therapy. Antibiotic susceptibility was determined. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03156855. Results: The eradication rates of 14 day sequential therapy and 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy were 91.3% (283 of 310, 95% CI 87.4%-94.1%) and 91.6% (284 of 310, 95% CI 87.8%-94.3%) in the ITT analysis, respectively (difference -0.3%, 95% CI -4.7% to 4.4%, P = 0.886). However, the frequencies of adverse effects were significantly higher in patients treated with 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy than those treated with 14 day sequential therapy (74.4% versus 36.7% P < 0.0001). The eradication rate of 14 day sequential therapy in strains with and without 23S ribosomal RNA mutation was 80% (24 of 30) and 99% (193 of 195), respectively (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Optimized 14 day sequential therapy was non-inferior to, but better tolerated than 10 day bismuth quadruple therapy and both may be used in first-line treatment in populations with low to intermediate clarithromycin resistance.