Surveillance Compliance and Quality of Life Assessment Among Surgical Patients with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome has a near-100% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Early surveillance and prophylactic surgery have been advocated to reduce this risk. However, the surveillance practices among FAP individuals in Saudi Arabia are unknown. We aimed to explore surveillance compliance in our population, as well as the disease impact on their quality of life (QoL). METHODS: All patients with FAP who underwent surgical resection at King Saud University Medical City between 2016 and 2022 were included. Demographic data, clinical features, family history, and compliance with surveillance were collected and analyzed. QoL questionnaires: Short-form health survey (SF-36) and European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) were conducted by phone interview. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients were included with an average age of 25 years. Three patients (21.4%) were the first of their family members to develop FAP. Nine patients (64%) were untested for genetic mutation due to lack of referral to geneticists. The compliance rate toward both pre-operative colonoscopy and upper endoscopy were 78%. However, 38% and 27% compliance rates were observed toward initial and post-operative colonoscopy, respectively. The compliance rate was 14% toward thyroid ultrasound. QoL scores varied among patients, with a mean score above 60 across all SF-36 domains. CONCLUSION: An overall poor compliance was observed among our participants, particularly toward thyroid ultrasound. Increased health awareness and patient education are essential. In addition, the importance of surveillance and genetic counseling should be emphasized among physicians treating these patients.

Up-to-Date Colonoscopy Use in Asian and Hispanic Subgroups in New York City, 2003-2016.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening uptake in the United States overall has increased, but racial/ethnic disparities persist and data on colonoscopy uptake by racial/ethnic subgroups are lacking. We sought to better characterize these trends and to identify predictors of colonoscopy uptake, particularly among Asian and Hispanic subgroups. STUDY: We used data from the New York City Community Health Survey to generate estimates of up-to-date colonoscopy use in Asian and Hispanic subgroups across 6 time periods spanning 2003-2016. For each subgroup, we calculated the percent change in colonoscopy uptake over the study period and the difference in uptake compared to non-Hispanic Whites in 2015-2016. We also used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of colonoscopy uptake. RESULTS: All racial and ethnic subgroups with reliable estimates saw a net increase in colonoscopy uptake between 2003 and 2016. In 2015-2016, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Central/South Americans had higher colonoscopy uptake, whereas Chinese, Asian Indians, and Mexicans had lower uptake. On multivariable analysis, age, marital status, insurance status, primary care provider, receipt of flu vaccine, frequency of exercise, and smoking status were the most consistent predictors of colonoscopy uptake (≥4 time periods). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variation in colonoscopy uptake among Asian and Hispanic subgroups. We also identified numerous demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related predictors of colonoscopy uptake. These findings highlight the importance of examining health disparities through the lens of disaggregated racial/ethnic subgroups and have the potential to inform future public health interventions.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction in the long-term, we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. METHODS: PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for a positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into (a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance); (b) non-interval type A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval); (c) non-interval type B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval); or (d) non-interval type C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, with surveillance not implemented owing to co-morbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories. RESULTS: 116362 colonoscopies were performed after a positive FIT with 9978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval type A (14.6%), non-interval type B (30.6%), and non-interval type C (1.4%). The most common etiology for interval PCCRCs was possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%); they were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV; 53.2%) compared with non-interval type A (15.9%; P<0.001) and non-interval type B (40.9%; P=0.03) PCCRCs. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.

Mental disorders, participation, and trajectories in the Danish colorectal cancer programme: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: People with mental disorders exhibit increased mortality due to colorectal cancer, despite having a similar incidence to the general population. We aimed to evaluate the extent to which people with mental disorders participate in organised colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of all Danish residents aged 50-74 years who were invited to undergo biennial faecal immunochemical testing between March 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2018. We used national registry data from all first-time invitees. The primary endpoint was participation within 90 days of invitation. We calculated the proportion who participated and assessed their screening results and adherence to and completeness of follow-up colonoscopy according to their history of mental disorders, classified as none, mild or moderate, or severe. We computed crude and adjusted participation differences in percentage points and participation ratios using the pseudo-observations method. FINDINGS: Of 2 036 704 people who were invited, we included 2 036 352 in the final cohort, of whom 1 008 045 (49·5%) were men and 1 028 307 (50·5%) were women, with a mean age of 60·7 years (SD 8·3, range 49-78). Data on ethnicity were not collected. Compared with people with no mental disorders, the adjusted analysis showed lower participation among people with mild or moderate mental disorders (men: participation difference -4·4 percentage points [95% CI -4·7 to -4·1]; women: -3·8 percentage points [-4·1 to -3·6]) and severe mental disorders (men: participation difference -13·8 percentage points [-14·3 to -13·3]; women: -15·4 percentage points [-15·8 to -14·9]). People with mental disorders had a higher proportion of positive faecal immunochemical test results, lower adherence to colonoscopy, and more incomplete colonoscopies than people without mental disorders. INTERPRETATION: People with mental disorders were less likely to participate in colorectal cancer screening than those without these disorders. Patients with mental disorders could benefit from support or encouragement from their general practitioner or mental health-care facility to participate in cancer screening. Potential interventions should consider type of mental disorder, as needs might differ. FUNDING: Danish Cancer Society, Danish Health Foundation.

Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Association Between Time of Day and Colonoscopy Quality.

Importance: Time of day was associated with a decline in adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are effective in improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown. Objective: To validate whether the assistance of an AI system could overcome the time-related decline in ADR during colonoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a secondary analysis of 2 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the AI-assisted group or unassisted group from June 18, 2019, to September 6, 2019, and July 1, 2020, to October 15, 2020. The ADR of early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were compared before and after the intervention of the AI system. Data were analyzed from March to June 2022. Exposure: Conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adenoma detection rate. Results: A total of 1780 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.61 [13.35] years, 837 [47.02%] women) were enrolled. A total of 1041 procedures (58.48%) were performed in early sessions, with 357 randomized into the unassisted group (34.29%) and 684 into the AI group (65.71%). A total of 739 procedures (41.52%) were performed in late sessions, with 263 randomized into the unassisted group (35.59%) and 476 into the AI group (64.41%). In the unassisted group, the ADR in early sessions was significantly higher compared with that of late sessions (13.73% vs 5.70%; P = .005; OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.31-4.47). After the intervention of the AI system, as expected, no statistically significant difference was found (22.95% vs 22.06%, P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI; 0.71-1.29). Furthermore, the AI systems showed better assistance ability on ADR in late sessions compared with early sessions (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.10-6.91 vs 1.60; 95% CI, 1.10-2.34). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, AI systems showed higher assistance ability in late sessions per half day, which suggests the potential to maintain high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies and further improve endoscopist performance in large screening programs and centers with high workloads.

Effect of Bowel Preparation to Colonoscopy Interval on Preparation Quality and Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effect of bowel preparation to colonoscopy time interval on quality of bowel preparation and outcomes of colonoscopy. METHODS: Studies were identified after a literature search in electronic databases and were selected for inclusion based on precise eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed to achieve overall bowel preparation adequacy and adenoma/polyp detection rates. Odds ratios depicting associations between bowel preparation quality and bowel preparation to colonoscopy time were pooled to achieve an overall estimate. RESULTS: Twenty studies (10 341 individuals subjected to colonoscopy) were included. Bowel preparation adequacy rate was higher with shorter (94% [95% CI: 91, 97]) than with longer (84% [95% CI: 79, 89]) interval between bowel preparation and colonoscopy. In a subgroup analysis, <5, 6-10, 11-20, and >20 hours intervals were associated with 94% [95% CI: 92, 97], 92% [95% CI: 86, 96], 85% [95% CI: 77, 91], and 85% [95% CI: 75, 92] adequacy rates, respectively. A pooled analysis of odds ratios also showed that bowel preparations adequacy was significantly better with shorter bowel preparation to colonoscopy time (odds ratio 1.69 [95% CI: 1.23, 2.15]). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate between shorter (18% [95% CI: 9, 29]) and longer (19% [95% CI: 15, 22]) bowel preparation to colonoscopy intervals. Polyp detection rate was higher with shorter (47% [95% CI: 27, 68]) than with longer (30% [95% CI: 24, 38]) bowel preparation to colonoscopy interval. CONCLUSION: A shorter interval between bowel preparation and colonoscopy led to a higher bowel preparation adequacy rate which was also associated with a higher polyp detection rate.

Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE). RESULTS: A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Factors Contributing to Non-Attendance of GI Endoscopic Procedures in a Tertiary Care Center in the Middle East.

INTRODUCTION: The cancer burden in the Middle East is high and growing. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer for both men and women in the UAE. Although early diagnosis of malignancy reduces morbidity and increases the survival rates, non-attendance of gastroenterology (GI) endoscopic procedures is a significant global problem, which can lead to delay in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Several factors have been found to contribute to non-attendance behavior, including socioeconomic, cultural, and organizational related barriers. The purpose of this study was to identify factors contributing to non-attendance behavior among outpatients scheduled for GI endoscopic procedures in a tertiary hospital in the United Arab Emirates. We conclude with recommendations that can help in reducing the rate of patient no-shows for GI endoscopic procedures in the region. METHODS: In a tertiary medical center in the Middle East, we surveyed patients who did not attend their scheduled GI endoscopic procedures over a period of one year. The questionnaire sought to identify possible reasons for patient's non-attendance. Descriptive measures including means, standard deviation, frequencies, and percentages were used to analyze the demographic characteristics of the study participants. The chi-square test was performed to analyze gender differences. RESULTS: Of 314 outpatients who met study inclusion criteria, 168 agreed to participate (53.5% response rate). The majority of participants were women (n=96, 60.4 %), aged 18 to 73, with a mean of 42 years. The largest age group was between 35 and 44 (n=46, 28.9 %). Approximately equal numbers of non-attendance appointments were scheduled for combined colonoscopy and upper endoscopy (36.3 %), colonoscopy alone (31.3 %), or upper endoscopy alone (31.3 %). The most common causes for cancellation or non-attendance included concerns about the appointment (35.5%), inconvenient timing of the appointment (27.9%) and changes in medical status (26.4%). Gender differences were noted for non-attendance behaviors, with women significantly more likely than men to report feelings of embarrassment (Chi-square 6.261, df=1, p=.012). CONCLUSION: Our study has identified several barriers to patient attendance of endoscopic procedures, as well as opportunities to reduce the rate of patient no-shows, including patient education, scheduling options, and protocols to minimize discomfort and misconceptions around GI endoscopic procedures, particularly accommodating for same gender endoscopists, with the ultimate goal of increasing early cancer screening and prevention.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Health Care Provider Characteristics Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences and Use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess health care provider (HCP) preferences related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening overall, and by HCP and patient characteristics. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We developed a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to assess factors associated with CRC screening preferences in clinical practice. The survey was administered online November 6 through December 6, 2019, to a validated panel of HCPs drawn from US national databases and professional organizations. The final analysis sample included 779 primary care clinicians (PCCs) and 159 gastroenterologists (GIs). RESULTS: HCPs chose colonoscopy as their preferred screening method for average-risk patients (96.9% (154/159) for GIs, 75.7% (590/779) for PCCs). Among PCCs, 12.2% (95/779) preferred multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), followed by fecal immunochemical test (FIT), (7.3%; 57/779) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (4.8%; 37/779). Preference among PCCs and GIs generally shifted toward noninvasive screening options for patients who were unable to undergo invasive procedures; concerned about taking time from work; unconvinced about need for screening; and refusing other screening recommendations. Among PCCs, preference for mt-sDNA over FIT and gFOBT was less frequent in larger compared with smaller clinical practices. Additionally, preference for mt-sDNA over FIT was more likely among PCCs with more years of clinical experience, higher patient volumes (> 25/day), and practice locations in suburban and rural settings (compared to urban). CONCLUSION: Both PCCs and GIs preferred colonoscopy for CRC screening of average-risk patients, although PCCs did so less frequently and with approximately a quarter preferring stool-based tests (particularly mt-sDNA). PCCs' preference varied by provider and patient characteristics. Our findings underscore the importance of informed choice and shared decision-making about CRC screening options.

Combination of Enhanced Instructions Improve Quality of Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Colonoscopist-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate bowel preparation is highly important for the efficacy of colonoscopy; however, up to one-third of patients do not accomplish adequate bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of the combination of enhanced instruction on the quality of bowel preparation and its impact on clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: This was a colonoscopist-blinded, prospective, randomized trial. SETTINGS: All patients received regular instructions for bowel preparation. Patients were randomly assigned to the control, telephone reeducation, and combined enhanced instruction groups. PATIENTS: Outpatients aged 19 to 75 years scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were randomly assigned to the combined enhanced instruction (n = 104), telephone reeducation (n = 101), and control groups (n = 106). An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the adequate bowel preparation rate was higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups (92.3% vs 82.2% vs 76.4%, p = 0.007). The rate of compliance with the instructions was significantly higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups. Method of education was associated with proper bowel preparation (adjusted OR 17.46; p < 0.001 for combined enhanced instruction relative to control). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study conducted in Korea. CONCLUSIONS: Combined enhanced instruction as an adjunct to regular instructions much improved the quality of bowel preparation and patients' adherence to the preparation instructions. The combined enhanced instruction method could be the best option for bowel preparation instruction. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673. LA COMBINACIN DE INSTRUCCIONES MEJORADAS, INCREMENTA LA CALIDAD DE LA PREPARACIN INTESTINAL ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO, CONTROLADO, ALEATORIO Y CIEGO PARA EL COLONOSCOPISTA: ANTECEDENTES:La preparación adecuada del intestino es muy importante para la eficacia de la colonoscopia; sin embargo, hasta un tercio de los pacientes no logran buenos resutlados.OBJETIVO:Investigar el impacto de la combinación de instrucciónes claras en la calidad de la preparación intestinal y su impacto en los resultados clínicos.DISEÑO:Trabajo aleatorio, prospectivo y ciego para el colonoscopista.AJUSTES:Los pacientes recibieron instrucciones periódicas para la preparación intestinal. Fueron asignados aleatoriamente al grupo control, educación telefónica y de instrucción mejoradas.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes ambulatorios de 19 a 75 años programados para ser sometidos a colonoscopia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El principal resultado fue una adecuada preparación intestinal.RESULTADOS:Un total de 311 pacientes fueron asignados al azar a la instrucción mejorada combinada (n = 104), reeducación telefónica (n = 101) y grupo de control (n = 106). El análisis estadístico mostró que la tasa de preparación intestinal adecuada fue mayor en el grupo combinado de instrucción mejorada que en los grupos de reeducación telefónica y control (92,3% vs 82,2% vs 76,4%, p = 0,007). La tasa de cumplimiento de las instrucciones fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de instrucción mejorada combinada que en los otros. El método de educación se asoció con una preparación intestinal adecuada (razón de posibilidades ajustada de 17,46; p <0,001 para la instrucción mejorada combinada en relación con el control.LIMITACIONES:Estudio en un solo centro realizado en Corea.CONCLUSIONES:La instrucción mejorada combinada como complemento de las instrucciones regulares mejoró mucho la calidad de la preparación intestinal y la adherencia de los pacientes a las instrucciones de preparación. El método de instrucción mejorado combinado podría ser la mejor opción para la instrucción de preparación intestinal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673.

Serum Globulin Is Associated with Endoscopic Findings and Mucosal Healing in Japanese Patients with Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Serum globulin is an inflammation marker. To date, no evidence regarding the association between serum globulin and disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis has been reported. AIMS: We evaluated the association between serum globulin and endoscopic activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Serum globulin was divided into tertiles based on the distribution of study subjects (low globulin, ≤ 2.7 g/dl (reference); moderate globulin, 2.7-3.1 g/dl; and high globulin, > 3.1 g/dl). A single endoscopic specialist evaluated the endoscopic findings, and mucosal healing was based on Mayo endoscopic subscore. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the study. Serum globulin was independently positively associated with diminished or absent vascular markings [moderate: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.70 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.82-7.88) and high: adjusted OR 2.40 (95%CI: 1.20-4.94), p for trend = 0.005]. A similar positive association between globulin and erosion was found [high: adjusted OR 2.00 (95%CI: 1.05-3.86)]. Serum globulin was independently inversely associated with mucosal healing [moderate: adjusted OR 0.37 (95%CI: 0.18-0.73) and high: adjusted OR 0.31 (95%CI: 0.14-0.64), p for trend = 0.001] and adjusted partial mucosal healing [moderate: OR 0.51 (95%CI: 0.26-0.98), p for trend = 0.048]. The inverse association between globulin and mucosal healing was significant in the low but not the high C-reactive protein group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative colitis, serum globulin was significantly positively associated with endoscopic activity, and was significantly inversely associated with mucosal healing, especially in the low C-reactive protein group.

The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. / EPAGE no es una estrategia eficaz para la gestión de colonoscopias durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD). METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated. RESULTS: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.

Microscopic Colitis in Denmark: Regional Variations in Risk Factors and Frequency of Endoscopic Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Microscopic colitis [MC], encompassing collagenous colitis [CC] and lymphocytic colitis [LC], is an increasingly prevalent gastrointestinal disease with an unknown aetiology. Previous research has reported significant differences in the incidence of MC within Denmark, with the lowest incidence found in the most populated region [Capital Region of Denmark]. Our aim was to elucidate the causes of these regional differences. DESIGN: All incident MC patients [n = 14 302] with a recorded diagnosis of CC [n = 8437] or LC [n = 5865] entered in The Danish Pathology Register between 2001 and 2016 were matched to 10 reference individuals [n = 142 481]. Information regarding drug exposure, including proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], statins, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], were retrieved from The Danish National Prescription Registry. Information regarding endoscopy rate, smoking-related diseases, and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were acquired from The Danish National Patient Registry. RESULTS: Smoking, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, exposure to PPIs, SSRIs, statins, and NSAIDs were significantly associated with MC in all Danish regions. The association between drug exposure and MC was weakest in the Capital Region of Denmark with an odds ratio of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.01). The relative risk of undergoing a colonoscopy with biopsy was significantly increased in sex- and age-matched controls in all regions compared with controls from the Capital Region of Denmark, with the greatest risk found in the Region of Southern Denmark, 1.37 [95% CI: 1.26-1.50]. CONCLUSIONS: The cause of the regional differences in MC incidence in Denmark seems to be multifactorial, including variations in disease awareness and distribution of risk factors.