Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening. SETTING: Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment. INTERVENTION: Sigmoidoscopy screening. MEASUREMENTS: Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening. RESULTS: Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years. LIMITATION: Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Fund of South-East Norway.

Emergency hospital admissions, prognosis, and population mortality in Norway during the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic, a national lockdown was established in Norway, and inhabitants were asked to contact healthcare only if absolutely necessary. We investigated hospital admissions and mortality due to non-Covid-19 disease during the lockdown compared to previous years. METHODS: We compared the number of emergency admissions and in-hospital fatality for diagnoses probably unaffected (acute myocardial infarction, acute abdominal conditions, cerebrovascular diseases) and affected by the lockdown (infections, injuries) in the South-Eastern Health Region of Norway during weeks 12-22, 2020, compared to the mean of the same period in the years 2017-2019. We also compared population mortality March-May 2020, to the mean of the same period in years 2017-2019. RESULTS: A total of 280,043 emergency admissions were observed; 20,911 admissions probably unaffected, and 30,905 admissions probably affected by the lockdown. Admissions due to diagnoses probably unaffected was reduced by 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9-15%), compared to 2017-2019. Admissions for diagnoses probably affected was reduced by 30% (95% CI 28-32%). There was a 34% reduction in in-hospital fatality due to acute myocardial infarction (95% CI 4-56%), 19% due to infections (95% CI 1-33%), and no change for the other diagnoses, compared to 2017-2019. The risk of in-hospital mortality to total mortality was lower for acute myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99) and injuries (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Even though fewer patients were admitted to hospital, there was no increase in in-hospital fatality or population mortality, indicating that those who were most in need still received adequate care.

Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and Sweden, two similar countries with very different mitigation measures against COVID-19. Methods: Using real-world data from national registries, we compared all-cause and COVID-19-related mortality rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 100,000 person-weeks and mortality rate ratios (MRR) comparing the five preceding years (2015-2019) with the pandemic year (2020) in Norway and Sweden. Results: In Norway, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.6-15.1 per 100,000 person-weeks; mean mortality rate 14.9) and was lower in 2020 than from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.4; MRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.98). In Sweden, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2018 (mortality rate 17.0-17.8; mean mortality rate 17.1) and similar to that in 2020 (mortality rate 17.6), but lower in 2019 (mortality rate 16.2). Compared with the years 2015-2019, all-cause mortality in the pandemic year was 3% higher due to the lower rate in 2019 (MRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04). Excess mortality was confined to people aged ⩾70 years in Sweden compared with previous years. The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden. Conclusions: All-cause mortality in 2020 decreased in Norway and increased in Sweden compared with previous years. The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.

Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway - a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed fitness centers during the Covid-19 pandemic may negatively impact health and wellbeing. We assessed whether training at fitness centers increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. METHODS: In a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial, fitness center members aged 18 to 64 without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities, were randomized to access to training at a fitness center or no-access. Fitness centers applied physical distancing (1 m for floor exercise, 2 m for high-intensity classes) and enhanced hand and surface hygiene. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 RNA status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) after 14 days, hospital admission after 21 days. The secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 antibody status after 1 month. RESULTS: 3764 individuals were randomized; 1896 to the training arm and 1868 to the no-training arm. In the training arm, 81.8% trained at least once, and 38.5% trained ≥six times. Of 3016 individuals who returned the SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests (80.5%), there was one positive test in the training arm, and none in the no-training arm (risk difference 0.053%; 95% CI - 0.050 to 0.156%; p = 0.32). Eleven individuals in the training arm (0.8% of tested) and 27 in the no-training arm (2.4% of tested) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (risk difference - 0.87%; 95%CI - 1.52% to - 0.23%; p = 0.001). No outpatient visits or hospital admissions due to Covid-19 occurred in either arm. CONCLUSION: Provided good hygiene and physical distancing measures and low population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no increased infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 in fitness centers in Oslo, Norway for individuals without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on May 13, 2020. Due to administrative issues it was first posted on the register website on May 29, 2020: NCT04406909 .