High real-world effectiveness of 12-week elbasvir/grazoprevir without resistance testing in the treatment of patients with HCV genotype 1a infection in Norway.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The recommended treatment duration of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1a (GT1a) infection with elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in the presence of a high baseline viral load and resistance associated substitutions (RAS) is 16 weeks with ribavirin added. The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of 12 weeks of EBR/GZR without ribavirin and regardless of baseline viral load and RAS testing. METHOD: This retrospective, observational cohort study was performed at five Norwegian hospitals that did not systematically utilize RAS testing. All adult patients with chronic HCV GT1a and compensated liver disease who had received 12 weeks of EBR/GZR without ribavirin and baseline RAS testing, were included. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12), or if not available, at week 4 (SVR4). RESULTS: We included 433 patients and attained SVR data on 388. The mean age was 45.7 years (22-73 years). 67.2% were male. HIV co-infection was present in 3.8% (16/424) and cirrhosis in 4% (17/424). The viral load was >800 000 IU/mL in 55.0% (235/427) of patients. Overall SVR was achieved in 97.2% (377/388). SVR was achieved in 98.3% (169/172) of those with viral load ≤800 000 IU/mL and in 96.2% (202/210) of those with viral load >800 000 IU/mL. CONCLUSION: We observed high SVR rates among patients with HCV GT1a infection treated with EBR/GZR for 12 weeks without ribavirin, with no regard to baseline viral load and no RAS testing.

The effect of train-the-colonoscopy-trainer course on colonoscopy quality indicators.

BACKGROUND: Systematic training in colonoscopy is highly recommended; however, we have limited knowledge of the effects of "training-the-colonoscopy-trainer" (TCT) courses. Using a national quality register on colonoscopy performance, we aimed to evaluate the effects of TCT participation on defined quality indicators. METHODS: This observational study compared quality indicators (pain, cecal intubation, and polyp detection) between centers participating versus not participating in a TCT course. Nonparticipating centers were assigned a pseudoparticipating year to match their participating counterparts. Results were compared between first year after and the year before TCT (pseudo)participation. Time trends up to 5 years after TCT (pseudo)participation were also compared. Generalized estimating equation models, adjusted for age, sex, and bowel cleansing, were used. RESULTS: 11 participating and 11 nonparticipating centers contributed 18 555 and 10 730 colonoscopies, respectively. In participating centers, there was a significant increase in detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm, from 26.4 % to 29.2 % (P = 0.035), and reduction in moderate/severe pain experienced by women, from 38.2 % to 33.6 % (P = 0.043); no significant changes were found in nonparticipating centers. Over 5 years, 20 participating and 18 nonparticipating centers contributed 85 691 and 41 569 colonoscopies, respectively. In participating centers, polyp detection rate increased linearly (P = 0.003), and pain decreased linearly in women (P = 0.004). Nonparticipating centers did not show any significant time trend during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a TCT course improved polyp detection rates and reduced pain experienced by women. These effects were maintained during a 5-year follow-up.

Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 µg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.

Registration bias in a clinical quality register.

Background and aims The quality of medical quality registers is poorly defined and lack of trust in data due to low completeness may be a major barrier against their use in quality improvement interventions. The aim of the current observational study was to explore how selective reporting may influence adverse events registered in the Norwegian quality register for colonoscopy (Gastronet). Materials and methods Gastronet's database includes data provided by endoscopists, nurses and patients. All outpatient colonoscopies reported to Gastronet in 2015 were included and compared to the total number of colonoscopies performed in Norway as retrieved from the National Patient Registry. Hospitals were categorized into four groups according to reporting completeness < 50 %, 50 % to 69 %, 70 % to 89 % and ≥ 90 %. The number of recorded adverse events (AEs) and procedure time were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to explore independent factors for selection bias. Results A total of 22,364 colonoscopies were reported to the National Patient Register of which 15,855 (71 %) were registered in Gastronet. Feedback was received from 11,079 patients (50 %). The frequency of AEs increased from 0.6 % in completeness group < 50 % to 1.6 % in completeness group ≥ 90 % ( P  < 0.001). Long colonoscopy procedure time was associated with low reporting completeness. Patient feedback was associated with older age, cecal intubation success and sedation-free colonoscopy. Conclusion Incomplete registration in a colonoscopy quality register is associated with underreporting of AEs. Longer procedure time, a surrogate marker for time constraint, is associated with low completeness.

Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction - both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into "junior" and "senior" endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure. CONCLUSION: Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR.

Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway.

Background and aims Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in healthcare. European guidelines have recommended inclusion of patient feedback to capture adverse events due to colonoscopy, but this is rarely implemented. Methods The Norwegian Quality Assurance network for endoscopy (Gastronet) collects patient-reported outcome for colonoscopies. Free-text comments on patient reports from January to December 2015 were characterized as positive or negative. All negative free-text comments were scrutinized for information that might suggest colonoscopy-related adverse events. We identified severe adverse events with and without admission to hospital. Results We included 16 552 outpatient colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals. A total of 11 248 procedures (68 %) were accompanied by a patient feedback report, of which 2628 (23 %) had free-text comments (2196 [20 %] characterized as positive and 432 [3.8 %] as negative). These negative free texts on patient reports revealed 15 post-colonoscopy hospital admissions due to adverse events that had not been registered in the colonoscopy report. This increased the number of hospital admissions caused by adverse events from 3 (0.03 %) to 18 (0.16 %). In addition, there were 14 patient reports of severe events without hospital admission. Therefore, a total of 29 severe adverse events reported by patients were missed by conventional documentation in the colonoscopy form. Conclusion It is feasible to implement patient feedback as routine reporting to capture the full picture of colonoscopy-related adverse events. Some patients experience significant complications that are not recorded through any registries. Patient feedback forms should be tailored to capture adverse events after colonoscopy that are otherwise not easily disclosed.

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm. RESULTS: The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Hepatitis C reinfection after sustained virological response.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: On-going risk behaviour can lead to hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection following successful treatment. We aimed to assess the incidence of persistent HCV reinfection in a population of people who inject drugs (PWID) who had achieved sustained virological response (SVR) seven years earlier. METHODS: In 2004-2006 we conducted a multicentre treatment trial comprising HCV genotype 2 or 3 patients in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (NORTH-C). Six months of abstinence from injecting drug use (IDU) was required before treatment. All Norwegian patients who had obtained SVR (n=161) were eligible for participation in this long-term follow-up study assessing virological and behavioural characteristics. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available in 138 of 161 (86%) individuals. Persistent reinfection was identified in 10 of 94 (11%) individuals with a history of IDU prior to treatment (incidence rate 1.7/100 person-years (PY); 95% CI 0.8-3.1) and in 10 of 37 (27%) individuals who had relapsed to IDU after treatment (incidence rate 4.9/100 PY; 95% CI 2.3-8.9). Although relapse to IDU perfectly predicted reinfection, no baseline factor was associated with reinfection. Relapse to IDU was associated with age <30 years (vs. ⩾40 years) at treatment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.03; 95% CI 1.78-27.8) and low education level (aOR 3.64; 95% CI 1.44-9.18). CONCLUSIONS: Over time, persistent HCV reinfection was common among individuals who had relapsed to IDU after treatment. Reinfection should be systematically addressed and prevented when providing HCV care for PWID.

Hepatitis C treatment at three Norwegian hospitals 2000-2011.

BACKGROUND: In the period 2000 ­ 2011, chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV infection) was primarily treated with a combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin. New antiviral drugs, which are effective but very expensive, are in the process of replacing this regimen. We have investigated the results pegylated interferon and ribavirin have yielded in ordinary clinical practice and examined the part this treatment may play in the near future. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We included in this retrospective study HCV-RNA-positive, treatment-naive patients at Stavanger University Hospital, Akershus University Hospital and Østfold Hospital who received at least one dose of pegylated interferon in combination with ribavirin in the period 2000 ­ 2011. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response (SVR). Predictors for SVR were identified by means of logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 588 included patients, 69.6% (409/588) achieved SVR, 14.3% (84/588) suffered relapse and 16.1% (95/588) showed non-response. In a multivariate analysis, genotypes 2 or 3 and low age at treatment start were independent predictors of SVR. A total of 85.4% of patients aged ≤ 40 years with genotype 2 or 3 had SVR. INTERPRETATION: We found good results for treatment of young patients with genotype 2 or 3 with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Low age and viral genotype were predictors of sustained virologic response (SVR).

Risk stratification to predict pain during unsedated colonoscopy: results of a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colonoscopy without sedation has several advantages over sedated colonoscopy, but a considerable proportion of patients experience pain. The aim of this study was to develop a risk stratification model of pre-examination risk factors to enable targeted sedation during colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2011 and January 2012, consecutive outpatients who were willing to start colonoscopy without sedation at 11 Norwegian centers were prospectively recruited. Patients recorded pain on a validated 4-point scale (none, slight, moderate, or severe pain). Potential risk factors for a painful procedure (defined as moderate or severe pain) were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analyses, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was calculated to assess the discriminatory ability of the derived model. RESULTS: A total of 1198 patients (635 men and 563 women) were included. Seven independent, pre-procedural risk factors for patient pain were identified: female sex, age < 40 years, previous abdominal surgery, abdominal pain as indication for colonoscopy, anticipation of pain, previous painful colonoscopy, and a history of diverticulitis. In patients with 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 risk factors, a painful colonoscopy was experienced by 35 %, 43 %, 52 %, and 63 % of women and 18 %, 24 %, 35 %, and 63 % of men, respectively. The model showed modest discrimination abilities (AUROC = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Female sex was a strong risk factor for pain during colonoscopy, and sedation or analgesia should be considered for all women prior to colonoscopy. For male patients, the presence of multiple risk factors should encourage the endoscopist to offer sedation.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging during colonoscopy is associated with less pain and decreased need of analgesia and sedation--results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy is the method of choice for examining patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms. The procedure is, however, in many cases, associated with pain and impaired compliance. Magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) generates a three-dimensional image of the colonoscope on a computer screen which may enable the colonoscopist to avoid looping, and consequently improve patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 200 outpatients referred to colonoscopy at Østfold Hospital Trust, Fredrikstad, Norway, were included. Patients were randomized to either the standard arm (using fluoroscopy on demand, n = 100), or the MEI arm (n = 100). End points were time to cecum, subjective pain experiences, and use of sedation or analgesics. RESULTS: Out of a total of 200 patients, 54% were men. However, no significant differences between the groups according to gender were found. Fluoroscopy was applied in 23% of the cases in the standard group. Use of MEI was associated with decreased time to cecum (p < 0.05), decreased pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale, p < 0.05), decreased need of analgesia (p < 0.01), and decreased amount of administered midazolam and pethidin (p < 0.05 in both). CONCLUSIONS: MEI during colonoscopy was associated with decreased pain and less on-demand requests for sedation and analgesia. In addition, the use of MEI reduced the cecal intubation time. Consequently the implementation of magnetic endoscopic imaging in the endoscopy suits may be beneficial, particularly in the clinically difficult cases.

[Pain in connection with colonoscopy in Norway]. / Smerter ved koloskopi.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopies are common examinations at Norwegian hospitals. In contrast to many other countries, the majority of colonoscopies in Norway are conducted without routine sedation or analgesia. We wanted to investigate whether current Norwegian practice offers adequate pain relief. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The material consists of prospectively recorded outpatient colonoscopies in the period January 2003-December 2011 performed at Norwegian hospitals in the quality assurance network for gastrointestinal endoscopy (Gastronet). We analysed demographic patient data and data from colonoscopies. Patients' experience of pain (none, slight, moderate or severe pain) in connection with the examination was established with the aid of a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: Data from 61,749 colonoscopies (55% on women) performed at 29 different hospitals were analysed. Colonoscopies were perceived as moderately or very painful by 33% of the patients (41% of the women, 24% of the men, p < 0.001). There were substantial differences between hospitals as to the percentage of colonoscopies that were perceived as moderately or very painful (from 9% to 43%, p < 0.001) and the use of sedatives and analgesics for the colonoscopies (from 1% to 92% of the examinations, p < 0.001). Only 23% of those who found the colonoscopy painful received analgesics. Pethidine was used in 95% of the cases in which analgesics were used during the examination. INTERPRETATION: Many patients find colonoscopies painful. Pain relief practice varies substantially between hospitals. Pethidine is an analgesic with a slow onset of action, and should perhaps be replaced with more rapidly acting opiates.

Gastronet survey on the use of one- or two-person technique for colonoscopy insertion.

BACKGROUND: Usually, colonoscopy insertion is performed by the colonoscopist (one-person technique). Quite common in the early days of endoscopy, the assisting nurse is now only rarely doing the insertion (two-person technique). Using the Norwegian national endoscopy quality assurance (QA) programme, Gastronet, we wanted to explore the extent of two-person technique practice and look into possible differences in performance and QA output measures. METHODS: 100 colonoscopists in 18 colonoscopy centres having reported their colonoscopies to Gastronet between January and December 2009 were asked if they practiced one- or two-person technique during insertion of the colonoscope. They were categorized accordingly for comparative analyses of QA indicators. RESULTS: 75 endoscopists responded to the survey (representing 9368 colonoscopies) - 62 of them (83%) applied one-person technique and 13 (17%) two-person technique. Patients age and sex distributions and indications for colonoscopy were also similar in the two groups. Caecal intubation was 96% in the two-person group compared to 92% in the one-person group (p < 0.001). Pain reports were similar in the groups, but time to the caecum was shorter and the use of sedation less in the two-person group. CONCLUSION: Two-person technique for colonoscope insertion was practiced by a considerable minority of endoscopists (17%). QA indicators were either similar to or better than one-person technique. This suggests that there may be some beneficial elements to this technique worth exploring and try to import into the much preferred one-person insertion technique.

Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme.

OBJECTIVE: An important challenge of any quality assurance (QA) programme is to maintain interest among participants to ensure high data quality over time. The primary aim of this study was to identify factors associated with endoscopist compliance with the Norwegian QA programme for colonoscopies (Gastronet). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Gastronet registration tools are an endoscopy report form to be filled in directly after the procedure by the endoscopist, and a satisfaction questionnaire to be filled in by the patient on the day after the examination. During the study period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006, endoscopist compliance was measured by assessing patient report coverage, defined as the percentage of patient satisfaction questionnaires received by the Gastronet secretariat divided by the total number of colonoscopy reports registered by the individual endoscopists during the study period. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to identify individual factors related to patient report coverage. RESULTS: Eighty-eight endoscopists from 10 hospitals contributed a total of 16,149 colonoscopies. Overall patient report coverage decreased from 87% in 2004 to 80% in 2006. A low patient report coverage was associated with time since the registrations started [odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-0.98; P < 0.001], use of sedation (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61-0.76; P < 0.001), and incomplete colonoscopy (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.54-0.76; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing compliance with registration over time may compromise data quality and the validity of the results. Lower coverage of patient's reports (presumably for the most difficult examinations) may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding colonoscopy performance.

The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres.

OBJECTIVE: The burden on colonoscopy capacity is considerable and expected to increase further as colorectal cancer screening programmes gain a foothold in Europe. In this situation, it is particularly important to evaluate the quality of the service given. In this article we present our first year of experience with a quality network of endoscopy centres in Norway (Gastronet). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire focusing on caecal intubation rate and pain was completed by the endoscopist (on site) and patient (on the day after the examination). Fourteen centres participated with registration of 7370 colonoscopies by 73 endoscopists. RESULTS: There was 100% endoscopist participation, 87% coverage of colonoscopies and an estimated 76% questionnaire coverage of the patient population. Overall caecal intubation rate was 91%, range 83% to 97% between centres (p < 0.001). Patients reporting severe pain during colonoscopy differed from 2 to 24% between centres (p < 0.001). Variations could only partly be explained by differences in procedure practice (sedation, CO2 insufflation). For individual endoscopists, improvement after feedback on performance was restricted to the group of endoscopists having contributed with only 50-99 registered colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: In quality assurance programmes we recommend a limited number of variables for registration in order to secure high compliance by endoscopists and patients. One year of experience with Gastronet disclosed a satisfactory overall caecal intubation rate, but considerable variation between centres in practice and ability to offer painless colonoscopy. This suggests a need for formal, centralized training of colonoscopists or the development of quality standards for colonoscopy training and practice.