Lubiprostone plus PEG electrolytes versus placebo plus PEG electrolytes for outpatient colonoscopy preparation: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Bowel preparation using large volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions is often poorly tolerated. Therefore, there are ongoing efforts to develop an alternative bowel cleansing regimen that should be equally effective and better tolerated. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of lubiprostone (versus placebo) plus PEG as a bowel cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Our study was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled design. Patients scheduled for screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to lubiprostone (group 1) or placebo (group 2) plus 1 gallon of PEG. The primary endpoints were patient's tolerability and endoscopist's evaluation of the preparation quality. The secondary endpoint was to determine any reduction in the amount of PEG consumed in the lubiprostone group compared with the placebo group. One hundred twenty-three patients completed the study and were included in the analysis. There was no difference in overall cleanliness. The volume of PEG was similar in both the groups. The volume of PEG approached significance as a predictor of improved score for both the groups (P = 0.054). Lubiprostone plus PEG was similar to placebo plus PEG in colon cleansing and volume of PEG consumed. The volume of PEG consumed showed a trend toward improving the quality of the colon cleansing.

Mesalamine protects against colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with the general population. Previous studies show this risk is strongly associated with dysplasia, extent of disease, duration of disease, and degree of inflammation, while chemoprevention of CRC has less support. AIM: Evaluate factors influencing risk of colorectal cancer development in inflammatory bowel disease patients. METHODS: IBD patients with CRC were matched to controls by IBD type, age at diagnosis, sex, race, extent of disease, and disease duration. We compared body mass index, family history of IBD, family history of CRC, tobacco use, and cumulative and daily use of aminosalicylates, immunomodulators, folic acid, steroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Statistical analysis was performed with logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Of 1,594 IBD patients, 30 CRC patients were identified. Of these, 18 CRC patients were matched to 30 controls. More control patients used a cumulative aminosalicylate dose of >or=4,500 g (46.6% versus 5.6%; P = 0.047), folic acid (40.0% versus 16.7%; P = 0.002), cumulative folic acid dose of >or=1,400 mg (30.0% versus 11.1%; P = 0.014), and average daily folic acid dose of >or=1 mg (30.0% versus 16.7%; P = 0.002) compared with CRC patients. Multivariate analysis showed that a cumulative aminosalicylate dose of >or=4,500 g reduced the risk of CRC by 97.6% (P = 0.047). Folic acid reduced CRC risk by 89% (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Aminosalicylate and folic acid use may decrease the risk of CRC among IBD patients.

Examining warfarin underutilization rates in patients with atrial fibrillation: Detailed chart review essential to capture contraindications to warfarin therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation affects an estimated 2.5 million Americans and incurs an average annual stroke risk of 4.5% per year. Despite warfarin reducing stroke risk by approximately 66%, prior studies show warfarin usage rates to be about 50%. However, the methods that define warfarin as "inappropriate underutilization" might not be sensitive enough to pick up relative contraindications. We assessed the inappropriate underutilization of warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients at our hospital by abstracting individual patient charts. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed to determine stroke risk factors, warfarin use, and documented contraindications to warfarin use in 364 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Amongst 364 atrial fibrillation patients, 54.6% received warfarin anticoagulation. Overall, 29.5 % of patients had documented reasons for not prescribing warfarin. Primary reasons listed by treating physicians included: gastrointestinal bleed 10.7%, secondary/transient atrial fibrillation 8.2%, and fall risk 6.3%. Only 7.1% of the patients had no documented reasons for the lack of warfarin use. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous reports, 45.4% of patients in this atrial fibrillation cohort were not prescribed warfarin. However, after reviewing medical charts for documented reasons why warfarin was not used, the inappropriate underutilization rate was only 7.1%. These findings suggest that studies utilizing administrative database and ICD-9 CM coding might overestimate warfarin underutilization.