Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
2.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 22(6): 1315-1322.e7, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38191014

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines now recommend patients with low-risk adenomas receive colonoscopy surveillance in 7-10 years and those with the previously recommended 5-year interval be re-evaluated. We tested 3 outreach approaches for transitioning patients to the 10-year interval recommendation. METHODS: This was a 3-arm pragmatic randomized trial comparing telephone, secure messaging, and mailed letter outreach. The setting was Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated healthcare system. Participants were patients 54-70 years of age with 1-2 small (<10 mm) tubular adenomas at baseline colonoscopy, due for 5-year surveillance in 2022, without high-risk conditions, and with access to all 3 outreach modalities. Patients were randomly assigned to the outreach arm (telephone [n = 200], secure message [n = 203], and mailed letter [n = 201]) stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Outreach in each arm was performed by trained medical assistants (unblinded) communicating in English with 1 reminder attempt at 2-4 weeks. Participants could change their assigned interval to 10 years or continue their planned 5-year interval. RESULTS: Sixty-day response rates were higher for telephone (64.5%) and secure messaging outreach (51.7%) vs mailed letter (31.3%). Also, more patients adopted the 10-year surveillance interval in the telephone (37.0%) and secure messaging arms (32.0%) compared with mailed letter (18.9%) and rate differences were significant for telephone (18.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 8.3%-27.9%) and secure message outreach (13.1%; 97.5% confidence interval: 3.5%-22.7%) vs mailed letter outreach. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone and secure messaging were more effective than mailed letter outreach for de-implementing outdated colonoscopy surveillance recommendations among individuals with a history of low-risk adenomas in an integrated healthcare setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT05389397).


Assuntos
Colonoscopia , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Masculino , Feminino , Colonoscopia/métodos , Colonoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , California , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Telefone , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/prevenção & controle , Adenoma/diagnóstico
6.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila) ; 13(11): 947-958, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32669318

RESUMO

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients.


Assuntos
Colonoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Atenção à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Atenção Primária à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Neoplasias Colorretais/epidemiologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
7.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 115(5): 706-715, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32205645

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used for gastrointestinal disorders; given they increase the systemic levels of gastrin, a trophic hormone, there is a concern about their carcinogenicity. This study evaluated the association between PPI use and gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study in a large, community-based integrated healthcare setting. Cases were adults with gastric (n = 1,233), colorectal (n = 18,595), liver (n = 2,329), or pancreatic cancers (n = 567). Each case was matched with up to 10 controls by age, sex, race/ethnicity, medical facility, and enrollment duration. The primary exposure was defined as ≥2-year cumulative PPI supply. Data were obtained from pharmacy, cancer registry, and electronic medical record databases. Associations were evaluated using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for multiple confounders. We also evaluated the cancer risks separately by PPI dose, duration of use, and dose and duration. RESULTS: PPI use of ≥2-years was not associated with the risks of gastric (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.42), colorectal (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99-1.12), liver (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.43), or pancreatic cancers (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.89-1.67), compared to non-users. In exploratory analyses, elevated cancer risks were primarily restricted to those with ≥10 years of PPI use, but no consistent associations were found for increasing PPI dose and/or duration of use. DISCUSSION: PPI use of ≥2 years was not associated with increased risks of gastrointestinal cancers. The cancer risks associated with PPI use of ≥10 years requires further study.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/epidemiologia , Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias Gástricas/epidemiologia , Idoso , California/epidemiologia , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Sistema de Registros , Fatores de Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...