Diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test for screening individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in screening individuals with a positive family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is not clear. AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of FIT using colonoscopy findings as the gold standard in identifying colorectal neoplasms. METHODS: We analysed data from 4539 asymptomatic subjects aged 50-70 years who had both colonoscopy and FIT (Hemosure; W.H.P.M., Inc, El Monte, CA, USA) at our bowel cancer screening centre between 2008 and 2012. A total of 572 subjects (12.6%) had a family history of CRC. Our primary outcome was the sensitivity of FIT in detecting advanced neoplasms and cancers in subjects with a family history of CRC. A family history of CRC was defined as any first-degree relative with a history of CRC. RESULTS: Among 572 subjects with a family history of CRC, adenoma, advanced neoplasm and cancer were found at screening colonoscopy in 29.4%, 6.5% and 0.7% individuals, respectively. The sensitivity of FIT in detecting adenoma, advanced neoplasm and cancer was 9.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.7-15.3], 35.1% (95% CI, 20.7-52.6) and 25.0% (95% CI, 1.3-78.1), respectively. Among FIT-negative subjects who have a family history of CRC, adenoma was found in 152 (29.6%), advanced neoplasm in 24 (4.7%) and cancer in 3 (0.6%) individuals. CONCLUSION: Compared with colonoscopy, FIT is more likely to miss advanced neoplasms or cancers in individuals with a family history of CRC.

Economic analysis of celecoxib versus diclofenac plus omeprazole for the treatment of arthritis in patients at risk of ulcer disease.

AIM: To evaluate the economic impact of celecoxib therapy vs. diclofenac plus omeprazole therapy for the treatment of arthritis in Chinese patients with a high risk of bleeding, from the perspective of a public health organization in Hong Kong. METHODS: The medical records of 287 Chinese arthritic patients with a history of bleeding ulcers who had previously participated in a randomised study of celecoxib 200 mg twice daily and extended-release diclofenac 75 mg twice daily plus 20 mg of omeprazole daily for 6 months were reviewed. RESULTS: Compared to the diclofenac plus omeprazole group, the average total direct cost per patient in the celecoxib group showed a significant reduction of 11%, from HK 10,915 (range HK dollars 10,915-57,899) to HK dollars 9714 (range HK dollars 9714-89,770) (P<0.0001) (1 US dollars=7.8 HK dollars). The median direct medical cost for routine management in the celecoxib group was significantly lower (11%) than that for the diclofenac plus omeprazole group [HK dollars 10,915 (range 10,915-28,048) vs. HK dollars 9714 (range HK dollars 6946-26,179) (P<0.0001)]. In patients who experienced recurrent bleeding, the celecoxib group showed a significantly higher median cost of management of recurrent bleeding than the diclofenac plus omeprazole group [HK dollars 8466 (range 572-29,851) vs. HK dollars 23,210 (range HK dollars 12,318-65,823)] (P=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib therapy appears to cost less compared with diclofenac plus omeprazole for treatment of arthritis in Chinese patients with a high risk of bleeding.

Preventing recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with Helicobacter pylori infection who are taking low-dose aspirin or naproxen.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who have had upper gastrointestinal bleeding continue to take low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis or other non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for musculoskeletal pain. It is uncertain whether infection with Helicobacter pylori is a risk factor for bleeding in such patients. METHODS: We studied patients with a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were infected with H. pylori and who were taking low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs. We evaluated whether eradication of the infection or omeprazole treatment was more effective in preventing recurrent bleeding. We recruited patients who presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding that was confirmed by endoscopy. Their ulcers were healed by daily treatment with 20 mg of omeprazole for eight weeks or longer. Then, those who had been taking aspirin were given 80 mg of aspirin daily, and those who had been taking other NSAIDs were given 500 mg of naproxen twice daily for six months. The patients in each group were then randomly assigned separately to receive 20 mg of omeprazole daily for six months or one week of eradication therapy, consisting of 120 mg of bismuth subcitrate, 500 mg of tetracycline, and 400 mg of metronidazole, all given four times daily, followed by placebo for six months. RESULTS: We enrolled 400 patients (250 of whom were taking aspirin and 150 of whom were taking other NSAIDs). Among those taking aspirin, the probability of recurrent bleeding during the six-month period was 1.9 percent for patients who received eradication therapy and 0.9 percent for patients who received omeprazole (absolute difference, 1.0 percent; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -1.9 to 3.9 percent). Among users of other NSAIDs, the probability of recurrent bleeding was 18.8 percent for patients receiving eradication therapy and 4.4 percent for those treated with omeprazole (absolute difference, 14.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, 4.4 to 24.4 percent; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with H. pylori infection and a history of upper gastrointestinal bleeding who are taking low-dose aspirin, the eradication of H. pylori is equivalent to treatment with omeprazole in preventing recurrent bleeding. Omeprazole is superior to the eradication of H. pylori in preventing recurrent bleeding in patients who are taking other NSAIDs.