Magnitude, Risk Factors, and Factors Associated With Adenoma Miss Rate of Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively estimate adenoma miss rate (AMR) and advanced AMR (AAMR) and explore associated factors. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE databases for studies published through April 2018 on tandem colonoscopies, with AMR and AAMR as the primary outcomes. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify risk factors and factors associated with outcome. Primary outcomes were AMR and AAMR and secondary outcomes were AMR and AAMR for different locations, sizes, pathologies, morphologies, and populations. RESULTS: In a meta-analysis of 43 publications and more than 15,000 tandem colonoscopies, we calculated miss rates of 26% for adenomas (95% confidence interval [CI] 23%-30%), 9% for advanced adenomas (95% CI 4%-16%), and 27% for serrated polyps (95% CI 16%-40%). Miss rates were high for proximal advanced adenomas (14%; 95% CI 5%-26%), serrated polyps (27%; 95% CI 16%-40%), flat adenomas (34%; 95% CI 24%-45%), and in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer (33%; 95% CI 26%-41%). Miss rates could be decreased by adequate bowel preparation and auxiliary techniques (P = .06; P = .04, and P = .01, respectively). The adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per index colonoscopy, and adenomas per positive index colonoscopy (APPC) were independently associated with AMR (P = .02, P = .01, and P = .008, respectively), whereas APPC was the only factor independently associated with AAMR (P = .006). An APPC value greater than 1.8 was more effective in monitoring AMR (31% vs 15% for AMR P < .0001) than an ADR value of at least 34% (27% vs 17% for AMR; P = .008). The AAMR of colonoscopies with an APPC value below 1.7 was 35%, vs 2% for colonoscopies with an APPC value of at least 1.7 (P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that adenomas and advanced adenomas are missed (based on AMR and AAMR) more frequently than previously believed. In addition to ADR, APPC deserves consideration as a complementary indicator of colonoscopy quality, if it is validated in additional studies.

The correlations between C-reactive protein and MRI-detected inflammation in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are widely used to monitor inflammation in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the relationship between CRP and MRI-detected inflammation is incompletely understood. The present study was undertaken to assess correlations between CRP and MRI-detected inflammation in axSpA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies concerning CRP and MRI-detected inflammation in axSpA patients. The MRI-detected inflammation was evaluated by MRI-based disease activity score (DAS). The correlation between CRP and MRI-based DAS was integrated by random-effect models. RESULTS: Eighteen studies reported a total of 1392 axSpA patients which were included in this meta-analysis. CRP was significantly associated with spinal MR DAS (r=0.226, 95%CI [0.149, 0.291], p<0.001, I2=23%). We also found a moderate correlation between CRP change and spinal MR DAS change (r[ASspiMRI-a]=0.354, 95%CI [0.282, 0.422], p<0.001, I2=48%; r[SPARCC]=0.544, 95%CI [0.345, 0.701], p<0.001, I2=19%). CRP at baseline was negatively associated with improvement in spinal MR DAS (r= - 0.327, 95%CI [-0.397, -0.264], p<0.001, I2=0%). However, no significant association was found between CRP and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) MR DAS. CONCLUSIONS: In axSpA patients, CRP is associated with MRI-detected inflammation in the spine but not in SIJ. We speculate that CRP could be a reasonable index to reflect spinal inflammation. Therefore, we suggest it is not essential to repeat spinal MRI in a short term, while SIJ MRI may be necessary to provide additional information on inflammation. Key Points • CRP is associated with MRI-detected inflammation in the spine but not in sacroiliac joints. • CRP at baseline was negatively associated with improvement in spinal MR DAS. • It was not essential to repeat spinal MRI frequently, while SIJ MRI may be necessary to provide additional information on inflammation.

Yisaipu® Provide AS Patients With an Economical Therapeutic Option While Original Biologicals are More Advantageous in the COVID-19 Epidemic Situation.

Objectives: Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents have been regarded as the most effective treatment for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) so far. However, economic factors limited the prescription of original biologicals in China. Yisaipu® is a biosimilar for etanercept as pre fill syringes (PFS), which has entered China's national medical insurance catalog for more than 10 yr and was widely used because it greatly reduced the economic burden of AS patients. Yisaipu® is provided subcutaneous injection in hospital setting only. We collected clinical data of AS patients before, during and after COVID-19 epidemic, in an attempt to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of original biologicals and Yisaipu® during regular follow up and COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: AS patients who received original biologicals or Yisaipu® in our department for more than 1 yr were included in our study. General data, demographic characteristics, disease activity, quality of life and medical compliance were collected from regular visits. The patients were followed up through telephone interviews from April 20th to 27th, 2020 about the overall impact of the COVID-19 epidemic. Results: There was no significant difference in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score-CRP (ASDAS-CRP) between the two groups. Health Assessment Questionnaire for Spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-s) showed that Yisaipu® group was superior to original biological group in terms of eating, gripping and driving. In addition, the medical cost of Yisaipu® was lower than that of original biologicals. The overall impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on patients of original biological group was comparatively smaller than that on Yisaipu® group. Conclusions: Yisaipu® provided AS patients with an economical selection during regular follow-up, while original biologicals had certain advantages in the COVID-19 epidemic setting, including a longer time interval between two drug administrations and the self-injection dose form of medication.