Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Prevalence, categorization and root-cause analysis based on the World Endoscopic Organization systemCáncer colorrectal poscolonoscopia / Prevalencia, categorización y análisis de las causas subyacentes basado en las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia

Aims: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations.Patients and methods: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. Results: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 “likely new PCCRCs”, 1 (4%) “detected, not resected”, 3 (12%) “detected, incomplete resection”, 8 (32%) “missed lesion, inadequate examination”, and 13 (52%) “missed lesion, adequate examination”. Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). Conclusion: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.(AU)

Objetivo: La Organización Mundial de Endoscopia recomienda que las unidades de endoscopia implementen procedimientos para identificar el cáncer colorrectal poscolonoscopia (CCRPC). Los objetivos de este estudio fueron evaluar la tasa de CCRPCP a los 3 y 4 años, realizar un análisis de causalidad potencial y categorización siguiendo las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia.Pacientes y métodos: Se incluyeron retrospectivamente los cánceres colorrectales diagnosticados de enero de 2018 a diciembre de 2019 en un hospital de tercer nivel. Se calculó la tasa de CCRPC a 3 años. Se realizó un análisis de causalidad potencial y categorización de los CCRPC (intervalo y CCRPC de no intervalo tipo A, B, C). Se evaluó la concordancia entre dos endoscopistas expertos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 530 cánceres colorrectales. Un total de 33 se consideraron CCRPC (edad 75,8±9,5 años; 51,5% mujeres). La tasa de CCRPC a 3 y 4 años fue del 3,4% y 4,7% respectivamente. La concordancia entre los dos endoscopistas fue aceptable para el análisis de causalidad (k=0,958) y para la categorización (k=0,76). La explicación probable de los CCRPC fue: 8 «probable CCRPC de novo», 1 (4%) «detectado, no resecado», 3 (12%) «detectado, resección incompleta», 8 (32%) «no detectado, examen inadecuado» y 13 (52%) «no detectado, examen adecuado». La mayoría de los CCRPC se consideraron de no intervalo tipo C (N=17, 51,5%). Conclusión: Las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia para el análisis de causalidad y la categorización son útiles para detectar áreas de mejora. La mayoría de los CCRPC eran evitables debido a lesiones no detectadas a pesar de realizar un examen adecuado.(AU)

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Prevalence, categorization and root-cause analysis based on the World Endoscopic Organization system.

AIMS: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 "likely new PCCRCs", 1 (4%) "detected, not resected", 3 (12%) "detected, incomplete resection", 8 (32%) "missed lesion, inadequate examination", and 13 (52%) "missed lesion, adequate examination". Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). CONCLUSION: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire / Tasa de vacunación y aceptación de la dosis adicional de la vacuna frente al COVID-19 en los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal que reciben terapia biológica: sin miedo y con ganas

Background: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. Methods: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. Results: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. Conclusions: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.(AU)

Antecedentes: La vacunación frente al COVID-19 constituye una acción prometedora para controlar esta pandemia. En septiembre de 2021, se aprobó una dosis adicional de vacuna en pacientes con inmunosupresión, incluidos los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) que reciben agentes biológicos. En este estudio se evaluó la tasa de vacunación y la disposición de recibir la dosis adicional de vacuna en este grupo de pacientes de riesgo. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal unicéntrico con pacientes afectos de EII con tratamiento biológico y elegibles para una dosis adicional de la vacuna COVID-19. Se evaluó la aceptación y los efectos adversos de la vacuna mediante encuesta telefónica o presencial y se recopiló en las historias clínicas las características de la EII, el tipo de vacuna recibida y la fecha de administración. Resultados: De un total de 344 pacientes, 269 (46,1% varones; edad media 47±16 años; enfermedad de Crohn n=198) fueron incluidos. Solo 15 (5,6%) pacientes rechazaron la vacuna frente al COVID-19, el 40% por convicción (negación de la pandemia COVID-19). Antes de la dosis adicional, la vacuna COVID-19 se había administrado en el 94,4% de los pacientes (n=254). En el 53,9% de los casos presentaron efectos adversos, principalmente dolor en el brazo (40%). Hasta el 94,1% de los pacientes refería la aceptación de una dosis adicional de la vacuna y el 79,1% ya había recibido esta dosis adicional en el momento de la evaluación final. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con EII que reciben agentes biológicos aceptan la vacuna frente al COVID-19, así como una dosis adicional si se les recomienda. Los médicos responsables de las unidades de EII deben proporcionar información y confianza en el uso de la vacuna en estos pacientes.(AU)

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire.

Effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 are already available and offer a promising action to control the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. BACKGROUND: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. RESULTS: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.

Effect of season and sunlight on viral kinetics during hepatitis C virus therapy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid viral response (RVR) during antiviral treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) predicts sustained viral response (SVR). Recently, vitamin D levels have been associated with SVR. As sunlight is the most important source of vitamin D and shows seasonal variation, we evaluated the effect of season on viral kinetics during peginterferon/ribavirin-based therapy for HCV. METHODS: Consecutive HCV patients treated with peginterferon/ribavirin and boceprevir/ telaprevir (June 2011-July 2014) were included. Patients were grouped according to season when therapy was initiated (Season A: May-October and Season B: November-April) depending on hours of daily sunlight. Multiple logistic regression analysis included factors known to influence SVR to treatment. The dependent variables were undetectable viral load (VL) or VL ≤15 UI/mL (VL ≤15) at weeks 4, 8 and 12, end of treatment and SVR. RESULTS: The study included 930 patients (66.8% men; median 54 years) treated with telaprevir (n=537) or boceprevir, without (n=481) or with lead-in therapy of peginterferon/ribavirin. Baseline characteristics of patients in Season A (45.3%, n=421) and Season B groups were similar. Overall, a higher rate of RVR (23.5% vs 16.1%, p=0.005) and VL ≤15 (51.0% vs 38.6%, p≤0.001) was observed in patients starting treatment during Season A versus Season B. By logistic regression analysis, initiating treatment in Season A proved to be an independent predictor of RVR and VL ≤15. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, seasonality affects viral kinetics in HCV genotype 1 patients treated with peginterferon/ribavirin-based therapy. Our findings support the hypothesis that vitamin D influences viral response to peginterferon/ribavirin-based therapy.