Patients' perspectives on marijuana use for inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter survey.

Background: As marijuana use is rising among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), so is interest in its potential use as a therapeutic agent. We sought to survey IBD patients regarding marijuana use, self-reported impact on IBD symptoms, and perceptions of safety. Methods: A multicenter anonymous survey was administered to patients with IBD between October 2020 and June 2021. The 70-question survey collected demographic variables, clinical variables, attitudes about marijuana, and perceptions of its safety and efficacy in IBD. Participants were classified by their marijuana use: "rarely/never," "current," and "former". Percentage and chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables between the 3 groups, and means and 2-group ANOVA were used for continuous variables. Results: Of 181 patients surveyed, 166 were eligible for the study. Of these, 70 (42.2%) participants were rare/never marijuana users, 44 (26.5%) were current users, and 52 (31.3%) were former users. Fifty-three percent thought marijuana would help with IBD inflammation and 80% thought it would help with IBD pain. Over 70% of patients from all groups thought marijuana had a low-to-moderate risk of harm, and 69.6% of the participants who never or rarely used marijuana thought marijuana was addictive, compared to 20.5% of the current users and 44% of the former marijuana users. Conclusions: While many patients thought marijuana use helps with IBD-related pain and inflammation, many expressed concerns about addiction to marijuana and a possible risk of harm. Further studies are needed to examine the benefit and harm of marijuana in IBD.

Real-world compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer polypectomy surveillance guidelines: an observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Overuse of screening colonoscopy increases cost and procedural adverse events, but inadequate surveillance can miss the development of colorectal cancer. We measured compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) polypectomy surveillance guidelines in clinical records and a survey. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study comparing surveillance intervals for first-time average-risk colonoscopies with the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. Cases were analyzed from 3 intervals (March 2021 to May 2021, November 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022 to May 2022), collectively termed the postguideline period, and a baseline period from November 2019 to January 2020. Real-world compliance rates were compared with results of a survey conducted between November 2020 and February 2021. RESULTS: Overall compliance was 48.9% among 532 colonoscopies, ranging from 8.3% for low-risk adenomas (LRAs), 88.3% for high-risk adenomas, 63.1% for sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), and 88.6% for hyperplastic polyps. Compliance for LRA increased from the baseline period (.8% vs 8.3%, P = .003), and 95.3% of nonadherent LRA cases followed the 2012 USMSTF guidelines. Compliance for LRAs was 18.6% among respondents who provided a compliant surveillance interval for LRAs in the survey. Noncompliance was associated with finishing training >10 years ago (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.7) and performing over 800 colonoscopies annually (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the 2020 USMSTF surveillance guidelines remains low at 2 years. Further research into outcomes for patients with LRAs and SSPs may increase guideline adoption.

Effectiveness and Safety of Tofacitinib for Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central to identify articles and abstracts reporting efficacy or safety data on tofacitinib use in UC. Primary outcome assessed was remission. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, steroid free remission, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included. The rates of remission were 29.81% [95% confidence interval (CI): 22.37%-37.25%, I2 : 90%] at week 8, 32.27% (95% CI: 27.67%-36.88%, I2 : 42%) at 6 months and 38.03% (95% CI: 33.59%-42.48%, I2 : 0%) at 1-year. Clinical response rates were 59.41% (95% CI: 55.03%-63.94%, I2 : 61%) at week 8, 48.99% (95% CI: 36.92%-61.06%, I2 : 91%) at 6 months and 50.87% (95% CI: 42.16%-59.58%, I2 : 67%) at 1-year. Odds ratio of clinical response at week 8 in biologic naive versus biologic experienced patients was 1.59 (95% CI: 0.54-4.63). Pooled incidence rate for serious infections, major adverse cardiovascular events, and nonmelanotic squamous cell malignancies across all doses was 4.41 per 100-patient years (PYs) (95% CI: 2.32-8.38 per 100-PY, I2 : 78%), 0.91 per 100-PY (95% CI: 0.43-1.93 per 100-PY, I2 : 37%) and 0.91 per 100-PY (95% CI: 0.61-1.34 per 100-PY, I2 : 0%), respectively. Higher dose was associated with an increased frequency of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: While the overall efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in moderate-severe UC is consistent with clinical trial data, the dose dependent increase in AEs highlights the significance of early dose de-escalation. Rate of clinical response after tofacitinb induction was similar in biologic naive and biologic experienced patients.

Effects of a personal trainer-led exercise intervention on physical activity, physical function, and quality of life of breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Exercise is important to address physical and emotional effects of breast cancer treatment. This study examines effects of a personal trainer led exercise intervention on physical activity levels, physical function and quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Women post active breast cancer treatment were recruited from 2015 to 2017, randomized to immediate exercise or wait-list control, and received three personal training sessions for up to 30 weeks. Physical activity and function were assessed by pedometer, and tests of endurance, strength, and flexibility. Self-reported physical activity, physical activity self-efficacy, and QoL were also assessed. RESULTS: 60 women were randomized to immediate intervention (n = 31) or wait-list control (n = 29). Subjects were aged (mean ± SD) 56 ± 10 years. On the endurance test, the exercise group significantly improved (increase of 18 ± 20 steps vs control 9 ± 12 steps) (p = 0.036). On the strength test, the exercise group significantly improved (increase of 4 ± 3 curls vs control 1 ± 3 curls) (p = 0.002). After intervention, change (mean ∆ ± SD) in the FACT-ES physical well-being subscale score was 1 ± 2 in the exercise group and - 1 ± 2 in the control group (p = 0.023). Improvement in Self-efficacy and Physical Activity (SEPA) score was significant with a change (mean ∆ ± SD) of 2 ± 5 for exercise vs 0 ± 5 for control (p = 0.047). The number of steps/day, back scratch test, weight, and self-reported physical activity did not significantly improve with intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention yielded significant improvements in endurance and strength but not physical activity or quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Future efforts to explore feasible ways to support patient's physical activity efforts need to be undertaken.