Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Design and validation of an artificial intelligence system to detect the quality of colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients' perception of their bowel cleansing quality may guide rescue cleansing strategies before colonoscopy. The main aim of this study was to train and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying rectal effluent during bowel preparation intake as "adequate" or "inadequate" cleansing before colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were asked to provide images of their rectal effluent during the bowel preparation process. The images were categorized as adequate or inadequate cleansing based on a predefined 4-picture quality scale. A total of 1203 images were collected from 660 patients. The initial dataset (799 images), was split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The second dataset (404 images) was used to develop a second test of the CNN accuracy. Afterward, CNN prediction was prospectively compared with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in 200 additional patients who provided a picture of their last rectal effluent. RESULTS: On the initial dataset, a global accuracy of 97.49%, a sensitivity of 98.17% and a specificity of 96.66% were obtained using the CNN model. On the second dataset, an accuracy of 95%, a sensitivity of 99.60% and a specificity of 87.41% were obtained. The results from the CNN model were significantly associated with those from the BBPS (P<0.001), and 77.78% of the patients with poor bowel preparation were correctly classified. CONCLUSION: The designed CNN is capable of classifying "adequate cleansing" and "inadequate cleansing" images with high accuracy.

Efficacy, Efficiency, and Acceptability of Telemedicine for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients' Follow-Up Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ambulatory clinic visits were replaced by the implementation of telehealth modalities in most inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) units. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, efficiency, patient satisfaction, and acceptability of using telephone consultation in an IBD unit. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in IBD patients who underwent telephone consultation during COVID-19 lockdown (between 16th March and 13th April 2020). To assess the efficacy of this telephone consultation (lockdown visit), nonscheduled visits, emergency consultation, hospital admission, and surgery from lockdown visit to the next scheduled consultation (post-lockdown) were checked. To evaluate efficiency, the time between lockdown visit and post-lockdown consultation was compared with previous consultation (pre-lockdown), and the total number of visits 12 months before and after lockdown visit was checked. A telephone survey was designed to rate perception for a telephone consultation. RESULTS: Out of a total of 274 patients, 220 patients (52.2% male; mean age 49 ± 16 years; Crohn's disease, n = 126; ulcerative colitis, n = 83; indeterminate colitis, n = 11) were included. Only one patient was consulted at the emergency department, 11 patients needed to rearrange the visit, and none patient underwent surgery before the scheduled post-lockdown visit. The interval to post-lockdown visit compared to pre-lockdown visit increased in 37.7% of patients. The satisfaction survey (n = 185) revealed that 94.6% perceived it was effective. However, 44.4% of patients rather prefer on-site consultation for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic was shown to be effective and efficient to care for IBD patients. In addition, telephone consultation is well accepted by patients in non-extended follow-up periods.

A slowdown of hepatitis C diagnosis in high-prevalence groups and with decentralized diagnostic strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnosis by hindering the path to elimination. Albeit, in an uneven manner, depending on the risk group and diagnostic strategy. METHODS: the requests of antibodies/RNA by venipuncture at hospitals and Primary Care centers (centralized) and via venipuncture or dried blood spot tests at prison and drug treatment centers referred for central processing (integrated decentralized) were recorded for one year, before and after the onset of the COVID-19 health crisis. RESULTS: a total of 20,600 tests (51 % male, 47.9 ± 1 5.8 years) were recorded. Among them, 96.5 % of the cases came from centralized and 3.5 % from decentralized settings, with an active infection rate of 0.2 % and 2.3 % (p < 0.001), respectively. There was a 31.3 % decrease in the number of requests during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period, which was more pronounced in the decentralized than centralized diagnosis setting (60 vs 30 %, p < 0.001). In addition, there was a 31.5 % decline in screening and 18.2 % decrease in the diagnosis of new cases of active infection, with a statistically significant decrease in decentralized compared to centralized diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: during the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in HCV diagnostic effort was observed, especially in decentralized strategies, with a higher prevalence of infection. Our results suggest a diagnostic delay that will prevent Spain from reaching the elimination target in 2023. Therefore, the reactivation of strategies, particularly targeting the priority groups, is urgently required.

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire.

Effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 are already available and offer a promising action to control the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. BACKGROUND: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. RESULTS: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.

Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Proper bowel preparation is of paramount importance for enhancing adenoma detection rates and reducing postcolonoscopic colorectal cancer risk. Despite recommendations from gastroenterology societies regarding the optimal rates of successful bowel preparation, these guidelines are frequently unmet. Various approaches have been employed to enhance the rates of successful bowel preparation, yet the quality of cleansing remains suboptimal. Intensive bowel preparation techniques, supplementary administration of bowel solutions, and educational interventions aimed at improving patient adherence to instructions have been commonly utilized, particularly among patients at a high risk of inadequate bowel preparation. Expedited strategies conducted on the same day as the procedure have also been endorsed by scientific organizations. More recently, the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged for the preprocedural detection of inadequate bowel preparation, holding the potential to guide the preparation process immediately preceding colonoscopy. This manuscript comprehensively reviews the current strategies employed to optimize bowel cleansing, with a specific focus on patients with elevated risks for inadequate bowel preparation. Additionally, the prospective role of AI in this context is thoroughly examined. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of outpatients may achieve cleanliness with standard cleansing protocols, dealing with hard-to-prepare patients remains a challenge. Rescue strategies based on AI are promising, but such evidence remains limited. To ensure proper bowel cleansing, a combination of strategies should be performed.

Reengagement strategies for hepatitis C patients lost to follow-up: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To achieve the World Health Organization's goal of eliminating HCV by 2030, reengagement of lost to follow-up cases is mandatory. However, there is lack of evidence concerning the best strategy. Our study evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, predictive factors, and costs of 2 different strategies. METHODS: We identified patients positive for HCV antibodies without RNA requests from 2005 to 2018. Patients fulfilling trial criteria (NCT04153708) were randomized to (1) phone call or (2) letter of invitation to schedule an appointment, followed by switching strategy. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five patients among 1167 lost to follow-up were identified. An analysis of the first 270 randomized patients (72% male, 51±13 y) showed a higher contact rate in the mail than in the phone call strategy (84.5% vs. 50.3%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, no differences were found related to appointment attendance (26.5% vs. 28.5%). Regarding efficiency, 3.1 letters and 8 phone calls were needed to successfully link 1 patient (p<0.001) but dropped down to 2.3 phone calls if we only considered the first call attempt (p=0.008). Prior specialist's evaluation and HCV testing in the predirect-acting antiviral era were the only factors associated with no showing up for the appointment. The cost per patient was €621.3 (2.5 quality-adjusted life-years) in the phone call strategy and €611.8 (2.4 quality-adjusted life-years) in the mail letter strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Reengagement of patients with HCV is feasible, and equally effective with similar costs in both strategies. The mail letter was more efficient, except when only 1 phone call was considered. Prior specialist's evaluation and testing in the predirect-acting antiviral era were factors associated with nonattendance to the appointment.