Outcomes of patients with microscopic colitis treated with corticosteroids: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of corticosteroid-treated microscopic colitis (MC) in a population-based cohort, and to compare these outcomes in patients treated with prednisone or budesonide. METHODS: A historical cohort study of Olmsted County, Minnesota residents diagnosed with collagenous or lymphocytic colitis (LC) between 1986 and 2010 was performed using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. RESULTS: Of 315 patients with MC, 80 (25.4%) were treated with corticosteroids. The median age at colitis diagnosis was 66.5 years (range: 16-95) and 78.7% were female. Forty patients (50%) had LC and 40 (50%) had collagenous colitis. Prednisone was used in 17 patients (21.2%) and budesonide in 63 (78.8%); 56 (75.6%) had complete response and 15 (20.3%) had partial response. Patients treated with budesonide had a higher rate of complete response than those treated with prednisone (82.5 vs. 52.9%; odds ratio, 4.18; 95% CI, 1.3-13.5). Six patients were lost to follow-up. The remaining 74 had a median follow-up of 4 years (range 0.2-14). Fifty patients out of the 71 who responded (70.4%) had a recurrence after corticosteroid discontinuation. Patients treated with budesonide were less likely to recur than those treated with prednisone (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85; P=0.02). After 397 person years of follow-up in the 73 patients with long-term data, 47 (64.4%) required maintenance with corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Patients with MC often respond to corticosteroid therapy, but with a high relapse rate. Budesonide had a higher response rate and a lower risk of recurrence than prednisone.

The Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire-30: documentation of reliability and validity of a tool for interventional trials in adults with esophageal disease.

The aim of this study was to develop the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire-30 Day (MDQ-30), a tool to measure esophageal dysphagia, by adapting items from validated instruments for use in clinical trials, and assess its feasibility, reproducibility, and concurrent validity. Outpatients referred to endoscopy for dysphagia or seen in a specialty clinic were recruited. Feasibility testing was done to identify problematic items. Reproducibility was measured by test-retest format. Concurrent validity reflects agreement between information gathered in a structured interview versus the patients' written responses. The MDQ-30, a 28-item instrument, took 10 min (range = 5-30 min) to complete. Four hundred thirty-one outpatients [210 (49%) men; mean age = 61 years] participated. Overall, most concurrent validity kappa values for dysphagia were very good to excellent with a median of 0.78 (min 0.28, max 0.95). The majority of reproducibility kappa values for dysphagia were moderate to excellent with a median kappa value of 0.66 (min 0.07, max 1.0). Overall, concurrent validity and reproducibility kappa values for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were 0.81 (95% CI = 0.72, 0.91) and 0.66 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.77), respectively. Individual item percent agreement was generally very good to excellent. Internal consistency was excellent. We conclude that the MDQ-30 is an easy-to-complete tool to evaluate reliably dysphagia symptoms over the last 30 days.

Impact of feedback and didactic sessions on the reporting behavior of upper endoscopic findings by physicians and nurses.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines for reporting Barrett's esophagus and hiatal hernia measurements and reflux esophagitis grades have been developed to improve consistency, communication, and, ultimately, patient care. Our aims were to assess the percentage of cases in which findings were reported in accordance with guidelines and to assess the impact of education and feedback on reporting behavior. METHODS: Prospective cross-sectional study design was used. Chart reviews were performed for all adult patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy at a tertiary care center during three 2-month time periods during a 12-month interval: Time 1 (March 1, 2004-April 30, 2004), Time 2 (July 1, 2004-August 31, 2004), and Time 3 (March 1, 2005-April 30, 2005). Standardized educational sessions began 2 years before Time 1. No intervention took place between Time 1 and Time 2; data were collected to examine secular change. Between Time 2 and Time 3, individual and group feedback and refresher sessions were given. RESULTS: Five thousand six hundred nine eligible esophagogastroduodenoscopies were performed, of which 2675 demonstrated Barrett's esophagus, hiatal hernia, and/or reflux esophagitis. At baseline, Barrett's esophagus and hiatal hernia measurements were dictated correctly in a median of 67% and 86% of cases, respectively, improving to 100% (P < .05) and 98% (P < .01) of cases, respectively. The Los Angeles Classification system was used in a median of 100% of cases at baseline and at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Anonymous individual and group feedback, in combination with brief, structured didactic educational sessions, significantly improves compliance with established guidelines for the reporting of Barrett's esophagus and hiatal hernia. Once successfully incorporated into clinical practice, adherence to the esophagitis Los Angeles Classification System is easy to maintain.