Comparing Colon Capsule Endoscopy to colonoscopy; a symptomatic patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) has proven efficacy in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases. Few studies have assessed patient-reported outcomes and preference between colonoscopy and CCE. METHODS: Patients from our centre who had both a CCE and colonoscopy within a 12-month period were identified. We performed over-the-phone interviews focused on satisfaction, comfort, and overall preference with a 10-point Likert scale. Electronic records were reviewed; reported Modified-Gloucester-Comfort-Scale (GCS) score, sedation, bowel preparation and endoscopist grade were documented. Data was compared between procedures. A Fishers exact test was used to compare proportions and a Student t-test was used to compare means, a p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In all, 40 patients were identified, 57.5% (23/40) were female and the mean age was 48 years (24-78). All patients were referred for investigation of lower gastrointestinal symptoms as part of an ongoing study [Endosc Int Open. 2021;09(06):E965-70]. There was a significance difference in mean comfort (9.2 vs 6.7, p < 0.0001, 95% CI - 3.51 to - 1.44) but not satisfaction (8.3 vs 7.7, p = 0.2, 95% CI - 1.48 to 0.33) between CCE and colonoscopy. Main cause of dissatisfaction with CCE was bowel preparation and for colonoscopy was discomfort. Age and gender were not found to be variables. The correlation between GCS and patient reported values was weak (R = - 0.28). Overall, 77.5% (31/40) of patients would prefer a CCE if they required further bowel investigation. Of these, 77.4% (24/31) preferred a CCE despite the potential need for follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: CCE has a high satisfaction rating (8.3 vs 7.7) and has a higher patient reported comfort rating (9.2 vs 6.7) than colonoscopy. Studies have confirmed CCE and colonoscopy have equivalent diagnostic yields. The majority of patients in our cohort prefer CCE to colonoscopy. CCE should be considered as an alternative to colonoscopy in selected individuals.

Low Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) False Negative Rate for Polyps Excluding Reader Error.

BACKGROUND: CCE is a diagnostic tool lacking clinical data on false negative rates. We aimed to assess this rate and the reader/technical error breakdown. METHODS: False negative CCEs were identified after comparing to a colonoscopy database. Missed pathology characteristics and study indications/quality were collated. Cases were re-read by experts and newly identified lesions/pathologies were verified by an expert panel and categorised as reader/technical errors. RESULTS: Of 532 CCEs, 203 had an adequately reported comparative colonoscopy, 45 (22.2%) had missed polyps, and 26/45 (57.8%) reached the colonic section with missed pathology. Of the cases, 22 (84.6%) had adequate bowel preparation. Indications included 13 (50%) polyp surveillance, 12 (46%) GI symptoms, 1 (4%) polyp screening. CCE missed 18 (69.2%) diminutive polyps and 8 (30.8%) polyps ≥ 6 mm, 18/26 (69.2%) of these were adenomas. Excluding incomplete CCE correlates, colonoscopy total and significant polyp yield were 97/184 (52.7%) and 50/97 (51.5%), respectively. CCE total polyp and significant polyp false negative rate was 26.8% (26/97) and 16% (8/50), respectively. Following re-reading, reader and technical error was 20/26 (76.9%) and 6/26 (23.1%). Total and significant missed polyp rates were 20.6% (20/97) and 14% (7/50) for reader error, 6.2% (6/97) and 2% (1/50) for technical error. CONCLUSIONS: False negative CCE rate is not insubstantial and should be factored into clinical decision making.

Addition of castor oil as a booster in colon capsule regimens significantly improves completion rates and polyp detection.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete excretion rates are problematic for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Widely available booster regimens are suboptimal. Recently published data on one day preparation CCE protocol using castor oil appeared effective. AIM: To assess the impact of adding castor oil to a standard split-dose (2-d) preparation in an unselected Western patient cohort. METHODS: All patients aged 18 or more referred to our unit for a CCE over a 5-mo period were prospectively recruited. Controls were retrospectively identified from our CCE database. All patients received split bowel preparation with Moviprep® [polyethylene glycol (PEG)-3350, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid for oral solution; Norgine B. V, United States], a PEG-based solution used predominantly in our colonoscopy practice. Control booster regimen included Moviprep® with 750 mL of water (booster 1) on reaching the small bowel. A further dose of Moviprep® with 250 mL of water was given 3 h later and a bisacodyl suppository (Dulcolax®) 10 mg after 8 h, if the capsule was not excreted. In addition to our standard booster regimen, cases received an additional 15 mL of castor oil given at the time of booster 1. A nested case control design with 2:1 ratio (control:case) was employed. Basic demographics, completion rates, image quality, colonic transit time, diagnostic yield and polyp detection were compared between groups, using a student t or chi-square tests as appropriate. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six CCEs [mean age 60 years (18-97), 56% females, n = 104], including 62 cases have been analysed. Indication breakdown included 96 polyp surveillance (51.6%), 42 lower gastrointestinal symptoms (22.6%), 28 due to incomplete colonoscopy (15%), 18 anaemia (9.7%) and 2 inflammatory bowel disease surveillance (1.1%). Overall, CCE completion was 77% (144/186), image quality was adequate/diagnostic in 91% (170/186), mean colonic transit time was 3.5 h (0.25-13), and the polyp detection rate was 57% (106/186). Completion rates were significantly higher with castor oil, 87% cases (54/62) vs 73% controls (90/124), P = 0.01. The number needed to treat with castor oil to result in an additional complete CCE study was 7, absolute risk reduction = 14.52%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06- 25.97. This effect of castor oil on excretion rates was more significant in the over 60 s, P < 0.03, and in females, P < 0.025. Similarly, polyp detection rates were higher in cases 82% (51/62) vs controls 44% (55/124), P = 0.0001, odds ratio 5.8, 95%CI: 2.77-12.21. Colonic transit times were similar, 3.2 h and 3.8 h, respectively. Image quality was similar, reported as adequate/diagnostic in 90% (56/62) vs 92% (114/124). CONCLUSION: In our capsule endoscopy centre, castor oil addition as a CCE booster significantly improved completion rates and polyp detection in an unselected Western cohort.

Colon capsule endoscopy is a viable alternative to colonoscopy for the investigation of intermediate- and low-risk patients with gastrointestinal symptoms: results of a pilot study.

Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a recommended viable alternative to colonoscopy for colonic visualisation in a variety of clinical settings with proven efficacy in polyp detection, surveillance, screening and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) assessment. CCE efficacy in an unselected average risk symptomatic cohort has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of CCE imaging assessment in average risk symptomatic patients as an alternative to colonoscopy with and without additional biomarker assessment. Patients and methods This was a prospective, single-center comparison study of colonoscopy, CCE and biomarker assessment. Results Of 77 invited subjects, 66 underwent both a CCE and colonoscopy. A fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and fecal calprotectin (FC) were available in 56 and 59 subjects. In all 64 % (n = 42) had any positive finding with 16 (24 %) found to have significant disease (high-risk adenomas, IBD) on colonoscopy. The CCE completion rate was 76 %, five (8 %) had an inadequate preparation, the CCE polyp detection rate was high at 35 %. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CCE for significant disease were 81 %, 98 %, 93 % and 94 % respectively. In addition, three (5 %) significant small bowel diagnoses were made on CCE. FC and FIT were frequently elevated in patients with both colitis (5/7, 71 %) and high-risk adenomas (4/7 57 %). While both had a low positive predictive value for clinically significant disease, FIT 32 % and FC 26 %. Conclusions CCE is a safe and effective alternative to colonoscopy in symptomatic average risk patients with or without the addition of biomarker screening.

Development of significant disease in a cohort of patients with non-specific enteritis on capsule endoscopy: clinical suspicion and a high base line Lewis score are predictive of Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: As with isolated ileitis the findings of nonspecific small bowel enteritis (NSE) on capsule endoscopy (CE) poses a clinical challenge. There is lack of available evidence to help clinicians to predict significant disease and long-term prognosis. AIM: To define the natural history of NSE in an Irish cohort. METHODS: Patients with a finding of NSE were identified from a database. Subsequent investigations, treatments and diagnosis were recorded. Patients were grouped based on ultimate diagnosis: Crohn's disease (CD), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), NSAIDs enteritis (NSAIDs), persistent NSE and no significant disease (NAD). RESULTS: 88 patients, 46 (52%) male, mean age 52 ± 17.8 years were included with a mean follow up of 23 ± months. The ultimate diagnoses were NAD = 43 (49%), CD = 17 (19%), IBS = 14 (16%), NSAIDs = 12 (14%) and persistent NSE = 2 (2%). Significantly, more patients diagnosed with CD on follow up were referred with suspected CD. CD = 14/17 (82%) vs 13/57 (23%), p < 0.001. While a diagnosis of CD was associated with a positive baseline Lewis score (> 135); 11/17 (65%) CD versus 16/ 71 (23%). Female gender was associated with an ultimate diagnosis of IBS (OR 5, p < 0.02). Older age was associated with NSAIDs enteritis, while more subjects without significant gastrointestinal disease were anemic on presentation. CONCLUSION: The majority (49%) of NSE patients do not develop significant small bowel disease. CD occurred in 19% of NSE patients on follow up. Clinical suspicion and capsule severity are predictive of Crohn's disease on initial CE.

Lower gastrointestinal symptoms and symptoms-based triaging systems are poor predictors of clinical significant disease on colonoscopy.

Introduction: Lower gastrointestinal symptoms (LGS) are a common cause of referral to the gastroenterology service. International guidelines are available to prioritise referrals. Some studies have reported that symptoms alone are a poor marker of clinically significant disease (CSD) but symptoms remain the main way to prioritise referrals in routine clinical practice. Aims/background: To correlate LGS with colonoscopy findings in an unselected patient cohort and to investigate whether using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines improve risk stratification. Method: Colonoscopy data over a 2-year period were obtained from our endoscopy database. Only patients with assessment of symptoms as their primary indication for colonoscopy were included. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria: known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), familial cancer syndromes, polyp and colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance, and prior colonoscopy within 5 years. Demographics, symptoms and colonoscopy findings were recorded and analysed. Results: 1116 cases were reviewed; 493 (44%) males, age 54.3 years (16-91). CSD occurred in only 162 (14.5%); CRC 19 (1.7%), high-risk adenoma 40 (3.6%), inflammation 97 (8.7%) (IBD 65 (5.8%), microscopic colitis 9 (0.8%) and indeterminate-inflammation 23 (2%)), angiodysplasia 6 (0.5%). Diarrhoea gave the highest diagnostic yield for CSD of 5.3% (OR 3.15, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.7, p<0.001), followed by PR bleeding, 2.9% (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.9, p=0.003). Weight loss gave the lowest diagnostic yield of 0.4%; (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.24, p=0.65). 592 (53%) and 517 (46%) fitted the NICE guidelines for CRC and IBD, respectively. Using NICE positivity improved detection but overall yield remained low 3% vs 0.4% (OR 7.71, 95% CI 1.77 to 33.56, p=0.0064) for CRC, and 9% vs 2.8% (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.17, p<0.0001) for IBD. Conclusions: The overall prevalence of CSD in our unselected symptomatic patients is low (14.5%). A holistic approach including combining symptoms and demographics with novel tools including stool biomarkers and minimally invasive colonoscopy alternatives should be applied to avoid unnecessary colonoscopy.

Genomic profiling of intestinal T-cell receptor repertoires in inflammatory bowel disease.

Growing evidence shows that inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) results from dysregulation of immune responses to gut microbes. T-cell receptors (TCRs) expressed on the T-cell surface play critical roles in discriminating pathogens from commensal intestinal microorganisms at the front line of the adaptive immune system. The breakdown of this interaction may trigger persistent inflammatory responses to gut bacteria, resulting in IBD. Taking advantage of high-throughput sequencing, we developed an integrated approach to dissect the intestinal TCR repertoires underlying IBD by collecting peripheral blood and inflamed intestine from the same set of 11 IBD cases. The intestinal TCR repertoires show lower clonotype diversity (p < 0.05) and stronger clonal expansion (p < 0.02) than those in the blood. This pattern becomes more profound in TCRs unique to the inflamed tissue compared with shared TCRs. Our approach further identified the increased usage of TRAV12-3 (false discovery rate, FDR < 5%), which biases its choices of J genes towards the reduction of TRAJ37 and TRAJ43 usage (FDR < 20%) in the inflamed intestine. Our genomic profiling suggests that this selective bias of V and J gene usage may lead to a loss of diversity in the intestinal TCR repertoires and result in mucosal inflammation in IBD.