Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

The Effect of Acid Suppression Therapy on the Safety and Efficacy of Plecanatide: Analysis of Randomized Phase III Trials.

PURPOSE: Plecanatide, an approved therapy for chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, is an analogue of uroguanylin that replicates its pH-sensitive activity and binds to guanylate cyclase-C receptors expressed on intestinal epithelium, stimulating fluid secretion. This analysis explores concomitant acid suppression therapy's effect on the efficacy and safety of plecanatide in adults with CIC. METHODS: Data from 2 placebo-controlled, 12-week Phase III trials of plecanatide in CIC were pooled. Patients were randomized to receive placebo, plecanatide 3 mg, or plecanatide 6 mg. The primary endpoint was the durable, overall complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) response rate (defined as ≥3 CSBMs in a given week and ≥1 CSBM increase from baseline within a week for ≥9 of 12 weeks, including ≥3 of the last 4 treatment weeks). Safety was also evaluated. Results were stratified by concomitant use or nonuse of acid suppression therapy. FINDINGS: Of the pooled intent-to-treat population, 338 of 2639 patients (12.8%) received concomitant acid suppression medication. Efficacy response rates in patients using acid suppressors were 23.6% with plecanatide 3 mg (P = 0.001 vs placebo), 22.1% with plecanatide 6 mg (P = 0.002), and 7.6% with placebo. Responses were similar in patients not using acid suppressors: 20.4% (plecanatide 3 mg, P < 0.001), 19.6% (plecanatide 6 mg, P < 0.001), and 12.1% (placebo). Serious adverse events were experienced by 3.3% of patients who used concomitant acid suppression and 1.0% of those who did not. IMPLICATIONS: Plecanatide treatment is safe and efficacious for patients with CIC when administered with concomitant acid suppression medication. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifiers: NCT02122471 and NCT01982240.

Post-marketing reports of pancreatitis in eluxadoline-treated patients pre and post US label change.

BACKGROUND: Eluxadoline, a United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D), underwent a change to its US prescribing information on 21 April 2017, contraindicating it in patients without a gallbladder due to increased risk of pancreatitis. This study aimed to elucidate the potential role of eluxadoline's label change on the number of reported spontaneous adverse events (AEs) of pancreatitis. METHODS: A pharmacovigilance database (Oracle Argus) was searched for eluxadoline use and spontaneously reported pancreatitis cases from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2018. Pancreatitis cases were reported as a proportion of the total number of reported AE cases in the safety database. The FDA's adverse event reporting system (AERS) was also interrogated for cases of pancreatitis concomitantly reported with eluxadoline use. RESULTS: In patients who received eluxadoline, 273 reported cases of pancreatitis were recorded (total AEs n = 2191; 12.5%). When known, 28.2% of patients reporting pancreatitis had intact gallbladders (49/174). Eluxadoline was withdrawn in 97.5% of cases, with 87.1% of patients improving or recovered at time of reporting. Importantly, the reporting proportion of pancreatitis cases decreased from 14.4% to 8.9% post label change. Findings were supported by the AERS results, which demonstrated a decrease in reporting proportion from 21.2% to 12.8%. CONCLUSIONS: While cautious interpretation is warranted, post-marketing data indicate that the contraindication of eluxadoline in patients without a gallbladder led to reduced reported cases of pancreatitis, with no additional reports of moderately severe or severe cases. Eluxadoline is a safe and well-tolerated treatment option for IBS-D when used according to the label.

Quality in Colorectal Cancer Screening with Colonoscopy.

The goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy is to minimize CRC with minimal risk and cost. In order to continuously improve the quality of colonoscopy, different outcomes must be measured. For this topic, the priority indicators to be measured are (1) frequency of scheduling colonoscopy at appropriate interval based on current guidelines; (2) frequency of identifying adenomas in average-risk individuals undergoing their first screening colonoscopy; and, (3) providing guideline-consistent recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after the procedure.

Family History of Colorectal or Esophageal Cancer in Barrett's Esophagus and Potentially Explanatory Genetic Variants.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to estimate the effects of a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) or esophageal cancer on the risk of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and identify variants in cancer genes that may explain the association. METHODS: Men scheduled for screening colonoscopy were recruited to undergo upper endoscopy. Cases and noncases were screenees with and without BE, respectively. The effects of family histories on BE were estimated with logistic regression, adjusting for the potential confounders. We additionally recruited men recently diagnosed with BE by clinically indicated endoscopies. Banked germline DNA from cases of BE with ≥2 first-degree relatives (FDRs) with CRC and/or an FDR with esophageal cancer underwent next-generation sequencing using a panel of 275 cancer genes. RESULTS: Of the 822 men screened for CRC who underwent upper endoscopy, 70 were newly diagnosed with BE (8.5%). BE was associated with family histories of esophageal cancer (odds ratio = 2.63; 95% confidence interval = 1.07-6.47) and CRC in ≥2 vs 0 FDRs (odds ratio = 3.73; 95% confidence interval = 0.898-15.4). DNA analysis of subjects with both BE and a family history of cancer identified one or more germline variants of interest in genes associated with cancer predisposition in 10 of 14 subjects, including the same novel variant in EPHA5 in 2 unrelated individuals. DISCUSSION: We found an increased risk for BE associated with a family history of esophageal cancer or CRC. Although analysis of germline DNA yielded no clinically actionable findings, discovery of the same EPHA5 variant of uncertain significance in 2 of 14 cases merits additional investigation.

Adherence to CRC Screening and Surveillance Guidelines when Using Split-Dose Bowel Preparation.

GOAL: To prospectively assess physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy in an average-risk screening cohort. BACKGROUND: Endoscopists' adherence to colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for repeat colonoscopy have not been well characterized. Furthermore, little is known about patient and colonoscopy factors that are associated with endoscopists' nonadherence to guideline recommendation. STUDY: This is a prospective cohort of average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013. The primary outcome was assessment of physician recommendations for repeat colonoscopy. RESULTS: 462 participants were prospectively enrolled. 13.6% (62) had guideline-inconsistent recommendations. 89% of the guideline-inconsistent recommendations were for an earlier interval. Endoscopists' reports cited suboptimal bowel preparation as the most common reason for earlier repeat colonoscopy. On multivariable analysis, patient split-dose preparation noncompliance was significantly associated with guideline-inconsistent recommendation (OR = 2.7) even after adjusting for other patient or bowel preparation-related characteristics. Additionally, increased odds of guideline-inconsistent recommendation were associated with older age (>70 years old), higher BMI, having 3 or more polyps, having had at least two previous colonoscopies, suboptimal bowel preparation, and having taken at least 12 hours till clear bowel movement. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists are adherent to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. Suboptimal bowel preparation is the most frequently cited factor in endoscopy reports leading to deviation from guidelines. Continued emphasis on optimization of bowel preparation, particularly patient compliance to split-dose regimen, is needed.

Split-dose bowel preparation improves adequacy of bowel preparation and gastroenterologists' adherence to National Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Guidelines.

AIM: To quantify the impact of split-dose regimen on endoscopists' compliance with guideline recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy in patients with normal colonoscopy or 1-2 small polyps (< 10 mm). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all endoscopy reports was undertaken in average-risk individuals > 50 years old with a normal screening colonoscopy and 1-2 small polyps. Data were abstracted from two time periods, pre and post-split-dose bowel preparation institution. Main outcome measurements were recommendation for timing of repeat colonoscopy and bowel preparation quality. Bivariate analysis by χ2 tests and Student's t-tests were performed to assess differences between the two cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression was used with guideline consistent recommendations as the dependent variables and an indicator for 2011 cohort as the primary predictor. RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were included in the study; 47.0% (1987) prior to the institution of split dose bowel preparation, and 53.0% (2238) after the institution of split dose bowel preparation. Overall, 82.2% (n = 3472) of the colonoscopies were compliant with guideline recommendations, with a small but significantly increased compliance rate in year 2011 (83.7%) compared to year 2009 (80.4%, P = 0.005), corresponding to an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95%CI: 1.07-1.47; P = 0.005). Colonoscopies with either "Adequate" or "Excellent" had increased from 30.6% in year 2009 to 39.6% in year 2011 (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in poor/inadequate category of bowel preparation as there was a mild increase from 4.6% in year 2009 to 5.1% in year 2011 (P = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Split-dose bowel regimen increases endoscopists' compliance to guidelines in average-risk patients with normal colonoscopy or 1-2 small polyps.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Guanylate Cyclase-C Agonists for Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation and Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Linaclotide and plecanatide are guanylate cyclase-C (GCC) agonists for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Our objective is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of GCC agonists based on data from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMED, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, clinicaltrials.gov, major conference abstracts, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission filings of drug sponsors to identify RCTs of CIC or IBS-C patients. We assessed efficacy based on FDA-approved composite responder endpoints, diarrhea as an adverse event, and study withdrawal owing to diarrhea for each therapy. Trial results were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random effects model of meta-analysis and exact logistic regression when appropriate with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-regression was performed to compare outcomes between therapies adjusting for placebo event rate. RESULTS: Eight linaclotide trials (five CIC; three IBS-C) and seven plecanatide trials (four CIC; three IBS-C) evaluating 10,369 patients met inclusion criteria. FDA publications documented that different definitions for diarrhea were used in linaclotide vs. plecanatide trials. Both drugs were efficacious in treating CIC (linaclotide 72 µg (Odds ratio (OR)=3.11, 95% CI 1.81-5.34); linaclotide 145 µg (OR=3.25, 2.15-4.91); plecanatide 3 mg (OR=1.99, 1.57-2.51)) and IBS-C (linaclotide 290 µg (OR=2.43, 1.48-3.98); plecanatide 3 mg (OR=1.87, 1.47-2.38); plecanatide 6 mg (OR=1.92, 1.48-2.48)). Diarrhea occurred in excess of placebo in treating CIC (linaclotide 72 µg (OR=3.07, 1.97-4.77); linaclotide 145 µg (OR=3.70, 2.69-5.10); plecanatide 3 mg (OR=3.86, 1.83-8.12)) and IBS-C (linaclotide 290 µg (OR=8.02, 5.20-12.37); plecanatide 3 mg (OR=5.55, 1.62-19.00); plecanatide 6 mg (OR=4.13, 1.57-10.83)). Based on meta-regression, there were no statistically significant differences between therapies in odds ratios for efficacy, diarrhea, or diarrhea-related study withdrawals. CONCLUSIONS: Both linaclotide and plecanatide demonstrate similar efficacy and tolerability in treating IBS-C and CIC. No differences in odds of diarrhea were seen between linaclotide and plecanatide.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Low-Dose Linaclotide (72 µg) for Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A 12-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Linaclotide is a guanylate cyclase-C agonist approved in the United States, Canada, and Mexico at a once-daily 145-µg dose for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC); a once-daily 72-µg dose for CIC recently received FDA approval. The trial objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 72-µg linaclotide dose in CIC patients. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized patients with CIC (Rome III criteria) to once-daily linaclotide 72 µg or 145 µg, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint, 12-week complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) overall responder, required patients to have ≥3 CSBMs and an increase of ≥1 CSBM per week from baseline in the same week for ≥9 of 12 weeks of the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included 12-week change from baseline in bowel (SBM and CSBM frequency, stool consistency, straining) and abdominal (bloating, discomfort) symptoms, monthly CSBM responders, and 12-week CSBM responders among patients who averaged >1 SBM/week at baseline. Sustained response (12-week CSBM overall responders who met weekly criteria for 3 of the 4 final weeks (weeks 9-12) of treatment) was evaluated as an additional endpoint. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 1,223 patients (mean age=46 years, female=77%, white=71%). The primary endpoint was met by 13.4% of linaclotide 72-µg patients vs. 4.7% of placebo patients (P<0.0001, odds ratio=3.0; statistically significant controlling for multiplicity). Sustained response was achieved by 12.4% of linaclotide 72-µg patients vs. 4.2% of placebo patients (nominal P<0.0001). Linaclotide 72-µg patients met 9-of-10 secondary endpoints vs. placebo (P<0.05; abdominal discomfort, P=0.1028). Patients treated with linaclotide 145 µg also improved CIC symptoms for the primary (12.4%) and sustained responder endpoint parameters (11.4%) and for all 10 of the secondary endpoint parameters including abdominal discomfort (P<0.05). Diarrhea, the most common AE, was mild in most instances and resulted in discontinuation of 0, 2.4%, and 3.2% of patients in the placebo, linaclotide 72-µg, and linaclotide 145-µg groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily linaclotide 72 µg significantly improved CIC symptoms in both men and women with a low rate of discontinuation due to diarrhea over 12 weeks of treatment.

Factors Associated with Surveillance Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) data in surveillance colonoscopy are limited. AIMS: Our aim was to determine surveillance ADR and SSPDR and identify associated predictors. METHODS: A retrospective review of subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for adenoma and/or SSP at an academic center was performed. The following exclusion criteria were applied: prior colonoscopy ≤ 3 years, incomplete examination, or another indication for colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist, and procedure characteristics were collected. Predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 3807 colonoscopies, 2416 met inclusion criteria. Surveillance ADR was 49% and, SSPDR was 8%. Higher ADR was associated with: age per year (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male gender (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.88), BMI per kg/m2 (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04), withdrawal time per minute (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03). Years since training (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99) was associated with lower ADR. Family history of CRC (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.27) and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.15-1.74) were associated with higher SSPDR. African-American race (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10-0.75) and diabetes (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.76) were associated with lower SSPDR. CONCLUSIONS: For surveillance colonoscopy, nearly half of patients had an adenoma and one in twelve had an SSP. In addition to established factors, BMI, endoscopists' screening ADR, and years since training were associated with ADR, whereas African-American race and diabetes were inversely associated with SSPDR. Further studies are needed prior to integrating surveillance ADR and SSPDR into quality metrics.

Safety of Eluxadoline in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea.

OBJECTIVES: Eluxadoline is a mixed µ-opioid receptor (OR) and κ-OR agonist and δ-OR antagonist, approved for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D). This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability of eluxadoline 75 and 100 mg twice daily (BID) in one Phase 2 (IBS-2001) and two Phase 3 (IBS-3001 and IBS-3002) studies. METHODS: Adults with IBS-D (Rome III criteria) were randomized to placebo or eluxadoline (75 or 100 mg) BID for 12 (IBS-2001), 26 (IBS-3002), or 52 (IBS-3001) weeks. Safety data were pooled. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed, with special focus on opioid-related AEs, including suspected sphincter of Oddi spasm (SOS) events. RESULTS: 2,776 patients were included in the enrolled set; the safety set comprised 2,814 patients, based on actual treatments received. The most frequent AEs in the placebo and eluxadoline 75 and 100 mg groups were constipation (2.5, 7.4, and 8.1%, respectively) and nausea (5.0, 8.1, and 7.1%, respectively); discontinuation due to constipation was uncommon (0.3, 1.1, and 1.5%, respectively). Ten SOS events (10/1,839; 0.5%) occurred in eluxadoline-treated patients, manifesting as acute abdominal pain with elevated aminotransferases or lipase, or pancreatitis; all occurred in patients without a gallbladder. Eight of these events occurred with the higher dose of eluxadoline, within 1 week of initiation of therapy, and all resolved with eluxadoline discontinuation. There were five events independently adjudicated as pancreatitis not associated with SOS, three of which were associated with heavy alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Eluxadoline was well tolerated in Phase 2 and 3 trials, with constipation and nausea the most common AEs. Consistent with the known adverse effects of opioid agonists, clinically apparent SOS events were observed in eluxadoline-treated patients. All occurred in patients without a gallbladder and the majority were observed in patients on the higher dose of eluxadoline, suggesting a possible association.