Holistic management of hepatocellular carcinoma: The hepatologist's comprehensive playbook.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common complication in patients with chronic liver disease and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Liver disease and liver cancer are preventable by mitigating and managing common risk factors, including chronic hepatitis B and C infection, alcohol use, diabetes, obesity and other components of the metabolic syndrome. The management of patients with HCC requires treatment of the malignancy and adequate control of the underlying liver disease, as preserving liver function is critical for successful cancer treatment and may have a relevant prognostic role independent of HCC management. Hepatologists are the ideal providers to guide the care of patients with HCC as they are trained to identify patients at risk, apply appropriate surveillance strategies, assess and improve residual liver function, evaluate candidacy for transplant, provide longitudinal care to optimize and preserve liver function during and after HCC treatment, survey for cancer recurrence and manage its risk factors, and prevent and treat decompensating events. We highlight the need for a team-based holistic approach to the patient with liver disease and HCC and identify necessary gaps in current care and knowledge.

Maintaining Clinical Freedom Whilst Achieving Value in Biologics Prescribing: An Integrated Cross-Specialty Consensus of UK Dermatologists, Rheumatologists and Gastroenterologists.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are now key drugs in the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the increasingly complex biologics environment and growing cost pressures in the UK have led to variability in drug commissioning and inequity of patient access across regions. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to provide consensus recommendations for enhancing the current situation in biologic prescribing in the UK by balancing clinical freedom with equitable distribution of biologics given the limited availability of resources. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to reach integrated, cross-specialty consensus among dermatologists, rheumatologists and gastroenterologists practising within the English National Health Service (NHS). RESULTS: We describe the concepts of clinical freedom and clinical judgement and demonstrate how, together with patient choice, they can be exercised in the context of biologic prescribing in the NHS. We highlight that in England, local variations occur that are at odds with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance; these variably limit the degree to which clinicians can exercise clinical freedom and impact on equity of patient access to treatments. We define factors encompassing a drug's value and identify challenges to the measurement and interpretation of this concept, which can raise barriers to the freedom of clinical choice and appropriate prescribing decisions allowing practices of holistic and personalised medicine. Cross-specialty consensus recommendations on ensuring equitable access to biologics in the NHS while protecting appropriate and individualised drug selection for patients are provided. We have also provided strategies for improving physician-commissioner communication to harmonise equity of patient access to biologics across England and improve patient outcomes. Commentary from patient advisory groups indicates that they welcome our exploration that value does not equal cost and agree that there should be an emphasis on shared decision making, which requires the clinician to practice clinical freedom by aligning the patient's needs and preferences with available treatment choices. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus highlights the need to strike a balance between clinical freedom and short-term cost restrictions to support equitable resource distribution within the English NHS. Consideration of these recommendations may help to harmonise local, regional and national services and balance equity of patient access to biologic treatments with excellence in the NHS.

Gastroprotection in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy: a position paper of National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO) and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO).

Aspirin and P2Y12 receptor antagonists are widely used across the spectrum of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Gastrointestinal complications, including ulcer and bleeding, are relatively common during antiplatelet treatment and, therefore, concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often prescribed. However, potential increased risk of cardiovascular events has been suggested for PPIs, and, in recent years, it has been discussed whether these drugs may reduce the cardiovascular protection by aspirin and, even more so, clopidogrel. Indeed, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies suggested an interaction through hepatic CYP2C19 between PPIs and clopidogrel, which could translate into clinical inefficacy, leading to higher rates of cardiovascular events. The FDA and the EMA sent a warning in 2010 discouraging the concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole or esomeprazole. In addition, whether the use of PPIs may affect the clinical efficacy of the new P2Y12 receptor antagonists, ticagrelor and prasugrel, remains less known. According to current guidelines, PPIs in combination with antiplatelet treatment are recommended in patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, including advanced age, concurrent use of anticoagulants, steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Like vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), DOACs can determine gastrointestinal bleeding. Results from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies suggest that high-dose dabigatran (150 mg bid), rivaroxaban and high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) are associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding as compared with apixaban and warfarin. In patients taking oral anticoagulant with GI risk factor, PPI could be recommended, even if usefulness of PPIs in these patients deserves further data. Helicobacter pylori should always be searched, and treated, in patients with history of peptic ulcer disease (with or without complication). Given the large number of patients treated with antithrombotic drugs and PPIs, even a minor reduction of platelet inhibition or anticoagulant effect potentially carries a considerable clinical impact. The present joint statement by ANMCO and AIGO summarizes the current knowledge regarding the widespread use of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, and PPIs in combination. Moreover, it outlines evidence supporting or opposing drug interactions between these drugs and discusses consequent clinical implications.

Standard gastroenterologist versus multidisciplinary treatment for functional gastrointestinal disorders (MANTRA): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the health-care system. Most specialist care is provided by a gastroenterologist, but only a minority of patients have improvement in symptoms. Although they have proven to be effective, psychological, behavioural, and dietary therapies are not provided routinely. We aimed to compare the outcome of gastroenterologist-only standard care with multidisciplinary care. METHODS: In an open-label, single-centre, pragmatic trial, consecutive new referrals of eligible patients aged 18-80 years with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive gastroenterologist-only standard care or multidisciplinary clinic care. The multidisciplinary clinic included gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut-focused hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and behavioural (biofeedback) physiotherapists. Randomisation was stratified by Rome IV disorder and whether referred from gastroenterology or colorectal clinic. Outcomes were assessed at clinic discharge or 9 months after the initial visit. The primary outcome was a score of 4 (slightly better) or 5 (much better) on a 5-point Likert scale assessing global symptom improvement. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who attended at least one clinic visit and who had answered the primary outcome question. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03078634. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 1632 patients referred to the hospital gastrointestinal clinics were screened, of whom 442 were eligible for a screening telephone call and 188 were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (n=65) or multidisciplinary care (n=123). 144 patients formed the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=46 in the standard-care group and n=98 in the multidisciplinary-care group), 90 (63%) of whom were women. 61 (62%) of 98 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group patients saw allied clinicians. 26 (57%) patients in the standard-care group and 82 (84%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had global symptom improvement (risk ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·13-1·93]; p=0·00045). 29 (63%) patients in the standard-care group and 81 (83%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had adequate relief of symptoms in the past 7 days (p=0·010). Patients in the multidisciplinary-care group were more likely to experience a 50% or higher reduction in all Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index symptom clusters than were patients in the standard-care group. Of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a 50-point or higher reduction in IBS-SSS occurred in 10 (38%) of 26 patients in the standard care group compared with 39 (66%) of 59 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·017). Of the patients with functional dyspepsia, a 50% reduction in the Nepean Dyspepsia Index was noted in three (11%) of 11 patients in the standard-care group and in 13 (46%) of 28 in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·47). After treatment, the median HADS scores were higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (13 [8-20] vs 10 [6-16]; p=0·096) and the median EQ-5D-5L quality of life visual analogue scale was lower in the standard-care group compared with the multidisciplinary-care group (70 [IQR 50-80] vs 75 [65-85]; p=0·0087). The eight SF-36 scales did not differ between the groups at discharge. After treatment, median Somatic Symptom Scale-8 score was higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (10 [IQR 7-7] vs 9 [5-13]; p=0·082). Cost per successful outcome was higher in the standard-care group than the multidisciplinary-care group. INTERPRETATION: Integrated multidisciplinary clinical care appears to be superior to gastroenterologist-only care in relation to symptoms, specific functional disorders, psychological state, quality of life, and cost of care for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Consideration should be given to providing multidisciplinary care for patients with a functional gastrointestinal disorder. FUNDING: None.

Agreement of gastroenterologists in traditional Chinese medical differential diagnosis of functional dyspepsia compared with traditional Chinese medical practitioners: A prospective, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of gastroenterologists major in western medicine in diagnosing traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome types of functional dyspepsia (FD), postprandial distress (PDS) and epigastric pain syndromes (EPS) based on the main symptoms, with that of traditional TCM practitioners in outpatient services. METHODS: Patients with PDS or EPS were enrolled in the study from six tertiary referral centers between January 2016 and December 2017. Their symptoms were first diagnosed by medical doctors, and then by the TCM practitioners. The diagnostic agreement between the gastroenterologists and the TCM practitioners was calculated. The patients' data and their types of FD syndrome were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: In total 160 patients, including 81 with PDS and 79 with EPS were enrolled. The total diagnostic consistency rate between the gastroenterologists and TCM practitioners was 86.3%, while that of PDS and EPS was 85.2% and 87.3%, respectively. The most common type of PDS diagnosed by TCM practitioners was liver-stomach disharmony syndrome (33.3%), spleen deficiency and qi-stagnation syndrome (33.3%), while that for EPS was liver-stomach disharmony syndrome (36.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists had a high diagnostic agreement about the types of FD syndromes based on differential diagnosis of the main symptoms, compared with TCM practitioners. This may aid gastroenterologists in selecting Chinese medicine for FD-based on syndrome differentiation.

Gastroenterologists' preference and risk perception on the use of immunomodulators and biological therapies in elderly patients with ulcerative colitis: an international survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Comorbidities, polypharmacy, malignancies, and infections complicate management of elderly patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). This study assessed gastroenterologists' preference in the prescription of medications or surgery to elderly patients with IBD, and the factors associated with their choices. METHODS: An international case-based survey was conducted that presented three cases of steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis assessing young-age versus elderly-age patients, with and without comorbidity. Physician characteristics and practice demographics were collected. Factors associated with selection of different choices of therapy were determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 424 respondents from 41 countries were included. Vedolizumab (53.2%) and thiopurines (19.4%) were the top treatment preferences for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (P < 0.0001). Comorbidity and older age were independently associated with more frequent use of vedolizumab (P < 0.0001), and less frequent use of immunomodulators and anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF; P < 0.0001). Comorbidity was the only independent predictor for selecting colectomy (P < 0.0001). A history of lymphoma (94%) and opportunistic infection (78.3%) were the most frequent conditions precluding the use of thiopurine and anti-TNF in elderly patients with IBD. Only 6.1% of respondents considered patient age a limit for vedolizumab, while 37.9% considered age as a limiting factor in prescribing thiopurines (P < 0.001). Geographical heterogeneity was identified with significantly more physicians from Oceania and North America favouring the use of vedolizumab. CONCLUSION: Vedolizumab was the preferred first-line agent in the treatment of elderly patients with IBD with steroid-dependent moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Older age and presence of comorbidity influenced the selection of medication. Comorbidity was the main predictor of colectomy. Geographical heterogeneity in prescribing habits may relate to medication reimbursement in individual countries.

Chronic Constipation in the United States: Results From a Population-Based Survey Assessing Healthcare Seeking and Use of Pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is characterized by unsatisfactory defecation and difficult or infrequent stools. CIC affects 9%-20% of adults in the United States, and although prevalent, gaps in knowledge remain regarding CIC healthcare seeking and medication use in the community. We recruited a population-based sample to determine the prevalence and predictors of (i) individuals having discussed their constipation symptoms with a healthcare provider and (ii) the use of constipation therapies. METHODS: We recruited a representative sample of Americans aged 18 years or older who had experienced constipation. Those who met the Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome and opioid-induced constipation were excluded. The survey included questions on constipation severity, healthcare seeking, and the use of constipation medications. We used multivariable regression methods to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 4,702 participants had experienced constipation (24.0% met the Rome IV CIC criteria). Among all respondents with previous constipation, 37.6% discussed their symptoms with a clinician (primary care provider 87.6%, gastroenterologist 26.0%, and urgent care/emergency room physician 7.7%). Age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment status, having a source of usual care, insurance status, comorbidities, locus of control, and constipation severity were associated with seeking care (P < 0.05). Overall, 47.8% of respondents were taking medication to manage their constipation: over-the-counter medication(s) only, 93.5%; prescription medication(s) only, 1.3%; and both over-the-counter medication(s) and prescription medication(s), 5.2%. DISCUSSION: We found that 3 of 5 Americans with constipation have never discussed their symptoms with a healthcare provider. Furthermore, the use of prescription medications for managing constipation symptoms is low because individuals mainly rely on over-the-counter therapies.

Screening and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency in UK Patients with Crohn's Disease: Self-Reported Practice among Gastroenterologists.

Currently, there is no UK national recommendation to measure vitamin D levels in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Patients with IBD are at risk of developing vitamin D deficiency with the highest prevalence frequently reported in those with Crohn's disease (CD). Treating vitamin D deficiency as part of CD management continues to be of interest. Our aim was to identify influences on practice and self-reported practice among British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-IBD section members in the screening and the treatment of vitamin D deficiency in patients with CD. A web-based survey was distributed via email to members of the BSG-IBD section. Reported screening practice was generally annual in those with a history of previous surgery related to CD or small bowel CD. A total of 83% of respondents (n = 64) thought that vitamin D levels should be routinely monitored in patients with CD. Treatments for mild/moderate deficiency included increased sunlight exposure (mean frequency = 21, SD = 15) and dietary advice (mean frequency = 22, SD = 14); in moderate/severe deficiency, oral supplementation was recommended (mean frequency = 14, SD = 13). Respondents reported factors most likely to influence practice, including clearer evidence and guidance. Well conducted studies in CD patients with identified vitamin D deficiency are needed to inform national guidance and clinical practice.

A Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial of the Use of the Smartphone-Based Health Applications IBDsmart and IBDoc in the Care of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Providing timely follow-up care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease in remission is important but often difficult because of resource limitations. Using smartphones to communicate symptoms and biomarkers is a potential alternative. We aimed to compare outpatient management using 2 smartphone apps (IBDsmart for symptoms and IBDoc for fecal calprotectin monitoring) vs standard face-to-face care. We hypothesized noninferiority of quality of life and symptoms at 12 months plus a reduction in face-to-face appointments in the smartphone app group. METHODS: Inflammatory bowel disease outpatients (previously seen more often than annually) were randomized to smartphone app or standard face-to-face care over 12 months. Quality of life and symptoms were measured quarterly for 12 months. Acceptability was measured for gastroenterologists and patients at 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred people (73 Crohn's disease, 49 male, average age 35 years) consented and completed baseline questionnaires (50 in each group). Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses revealed noninferiority of quality of life and symptom scores at 12 months. Outpatient appointment numbers were reduced in smartphone app care (P < 0.001). There was no difference in number of surgical outpatient appointments or number of disease-related hospitalizations between groups. Adherence to IBDsmart (50% perfect adherence) was slightly better than adherence to IBDoc (30% perfect adherence). Good acceptability was reported among most gastroenterologists and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Remote symptom and fecal calprotectin monitoring is effective and acceptable. It also reduces the need for face-to-face outpatient appointments. Patients with mild-to-moderate disease who are not new diagnoses are ideal for this system. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000342516.

Development of quality measures for use of self-injectable biologic therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: An integrated specialty pharmacy initiative.

PURPOSE: The development of a tool to measure medication safety, therapeutic efficacy, and other quality outcomes in patients receiving self-injectable biologic therapy for the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) at a health-system specialty pharmacy is described. SUMMARY: Through a collaborative initiative by pharmacists, gastro-enterologists, and representatives of a pharmacy benefit manager and a pharmaceutical company, a set of clinical and specialty pharmacy quality measures was developed. The clinical measures are intended for use in assessing patient safety, disease status, treatment efficacy, and healthcare resource utilization during 3 assessments (pre-treatment, on-treatment, and longitudinal). The specialty pharmacy measures can be used to assess medication adherence, medication persistence, specialty pharmacy accreditation, and patient satisfaction. The proposed quality measures provide a foundation for evaluating the quality of IBD care and improving patient outcomes within a health-system specialty pharmacy. Future efforts to validate and implement the tool in clinical practice are planned. CONCLUSION: The proposed quality measures provide a foundation for future inquiry regarding the appropriateness and feasibility of integrating the measures into clinical care. Further work is needed to implement and validate these quality measures and determine their impact in optimizing health outcomes.

Defining Optimal Care for Functional Gut Disorders - Multi-Disciplinary Versus Standard Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are the commonest reason for gastroenterological consultation, with patients usually seen by a specialist working in isolation. There is a wealth of evidence testifying to the benefit provided by dieticians, behavioral therapists, hypnotherapists and psychotherapists in treating these conditions, yet they rarely form a part of the therapeutic team, and these treatment modalities are rarely offered as part of the therapeutic management. There has been little examination of different models of care for FGIDs. We hypothesize that multi-disciplinary integrated care is superior to standard specialist-based care in the treatment of functional gut disorders. METHODS: The "MANTRA" (Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Gut Disorders) study compares comprehensive multi-disciplinary outpatient care with standard hospital outpatient care. Consecutive new referrals to the gastroenterology and colorectal outpatient clinics of a single secondary and tertiary care hospital of patients with an FGID, defined by the Rome IV criteria, will be included. Patients will be prospectively randomized 2:1 to multi-disciplinary (gastroenterologist, gut-hypnotherapist, psychiatrist, behavioral therapist ('biofeedback') and dietician) or standard care (gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon). Patients are assessed up to 12 months after completing treatment. The primary outcome is an improvement on a global assessment scale at the end of treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, psychological well-being, and healthcare costs are secondary outcome measures. DISCUSSION: There have been few studies examining how best to deliver care for functional gut disorders. The MANTRA study will define the clinical and cost benefits of two different models of care for these highly prevalent disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.govNCT03078634 Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, completed recruitment, registered on March 13th 2017. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been received by the St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne human research ethics committee (HREC-A 138/16). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. Protocol version 1.2.

Best Practice Update: Incorporating Psychogastroenterology Into Management of Digestive Disorders.

Chronic digestive diseases, including irritable bowel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and inflammatory bowel diseases, cannot be disentangled from their psychological context-the substantial burden of these diseases is co-determined by symptom and disease severity and the ability of patients to cope with their symptoms without significant interruption to daily life. The growing field of psychogastroenterology focuses on the application of scientifically based psychological principles and techniques to the alleviation of digestive symptoms. In this Clinical Practice Update, we describe the structure and efficacy of 2 major classes of psychotherapy-cognitive behavior therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy. We focus on the impact of these brain-gut psychotherapies on gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as their ability to facilitate improved coping, resilience, and self-regulation. The importance of the gastroenterologist in the promotion of integrated psychological care cannot be overstated, and recommendations are provided on how to address psychological issues and make an effective referral for brain-gut psychotherapy in routine practice.

Sorafenib prescribed by gastroenterologists and hepatologists for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study.

Sorafenib is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved first-line therapy shown to have survival benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with advanced HCC are often but not exclusively transferred from non-oncologists to oncologists to initiate systemic therapy. The objective of this study was to assess whether sorafenib prescribing by non-oncologists has any impact on utilization, adverse effects, cost or outcome.This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from patients prescribed sorafenib for HCC within Veterans Health Administration hospitals with 100% chart abstraction to confirm HCC diagnosis, identify prescribing provider specialty (oncology versus gastroenterology/hepatology), and obtain data required for cancer staging by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system. The primary outcome was overall survival from the time of sorafenib prescription.A total of 4903 patients who prescribed sorafenib for HCC were identified, for whom 340 patients (6.9%) were prescribed drug by a non-oncologist (Onc). BCLC Stage, age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, and comorbidity indices were similar between patients prescribed sorafenib by oncologists and non-oncologists. Oncologists more often discontinued sorafenib due to progression, whereas non-oncologists were more likely to continue sorafenib until death resulting in greater pill utilization and cost. Overall survival in both unadjusted and multivariable models showed no significant impact of prescriber type on survival (222 vs 217 days, P = .96), confirmed with propensity-matched subcohorts.Similar survival outcomes were observed for patients with HCC prescribed sorafenib by non-oncologists and oncologists, suggesting that non-oncologists with expertise in the management of HCC can safely and effectively administer sorafenib.

Medical Professionals' Review of YouTube Videos Pertaining to Exercises for the Constipation Relief.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the content quality of YouTube videos on exercises to help relieve constipation and to assess whether the video source, exercise types, and popularity affected their quality. METHODS: Eight gastroenterologists independently evaluated the exercises presented in the constipation YouTube videos for seven items: image quality, usefulness in relieving constipation (quality 1), usefulness for general physical health (quality 2), difficulty in following, activity intensity, fun, and overall quality. Raters were asked open-ended questions to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the videos. Five-point ordinal scales were used to score each item aforementioned, with the exception of image quality and overall quality that used a six-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The 20 videos had a mean length of 268 seconds and a mean viewership of 32,694. The most common video source was commercial (n=10), and the most common type of physical activity was yoga (n=11). The median values of image quality, quality 1, quality 2, difficulty in following, activity intensity, fun, and overall quality were 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, and 2, respectively. Yoga videos had significantly higher median quality 1 values (3) compared with massage videos (2, adjusted p=0.006) and 'others' videos (2, adjusted p<0.001). A lack of medical evidence was the most common answer to open-ended questions about the weaknesses of each video. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, YouTube exercise videos presented a low-quality content. This study highlights the need for evidence-based comprehensive educational videos addressing exercises for treating constipation.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.