Supported Intervention Versus Intervention Alone for Management of Fecal Incontinence in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to test a noninvasive self-management intervention supported by specialist nurses versus intervention alone in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experiencing fecal incontinence and to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the trial. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (RCT). SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised patients from a preceding case-finding study who reported fecal incontinence and met study requirements; the RCT was delivered via IBD outpatient clinics in 6 hospitals (5 in major UK cities, 1 rural) between September 2015 and August 2017. Sixteen participants and 11 staff members were interviewed for qualitative evaluation. METHODS: Adults with IBD completed the study activities over a 3-month period following randomization. Each participant received either four 30-minute structured sessions with an IBD clinical nurse specialist and a self-management booklet or the booklet alone. Low retention numbers precluded statistical analysis; individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed professionally, were conducted to evaluate the RCT. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using an inductive method. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants (36%) of the targeted 186 participants were recruited. The groups comprised 32 participants (17% of targeted participants) allocated to the nurse + booklet intervention and 35 (18.8% of targeted participants) allocated to the booklet alone. Less than one-third (n = 21, 31.3%) completed the study. Given the low recruitment and high attrition, statistical analysis of quantitative data was considered futile. Participant interviews were conducted concerning study participation and 4 themes emerged that described experiences of patients and staff. These data provided insights into reasons for low recruitment and high attrition, as well as challenges of delivering resource-heavy studies in busy health service environments. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative approaches to trials of nurse-led interventions in hospital settings are needed as many interfering factors may prevent successful completion.

Development and initial psychometric validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for Crohn's perianal fistula: the Crohn's Anal Fistula Quality of Life (CAF-QoL) scale.

INTRODUCTION: Crohn's perianal fistulas are challenging for patients and clinicians. Many do not respond to available treatments and despite recommendations by a global consensus, there are currently no specific patient-derived quality of life tools to measure response to treatment. We present a new validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for this complicated disease phenotype. METHODS: A draft questionnaire was generated using unstructured qualitative patient interviews on the experience of living with Crohn's perianal fistula, a nationwide multidisciplinary consensus exercise, a systematic review of outcomes assessing medical/surgical/combined treatment and a patient and public involvement day. Psychometric properties were assessed including construct validity (by comparison with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (UK-IBDQ)), and reliability and responsiveness was assessed by test-retest analysis. RESULTS: Data from 211 patients contributed to development of a final 28-item questionnaire. The Crohn's Anal Fistula Quality of Life (CAF-QoL) demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.88), excellent stability (intraclass correlation 0.98) and good responsiveness and construct validity, with positive correlation with the UK-IBDQ and HADS. CONCLUSION: The CAF-QoL scale is ready for use as a PROM in research and clinical practice. It complements objective clinical evaluation of fistula by capturing impact on the patient.

Clinician Administered and Self-Report Survey Both Effective for Identifying Fecal Incontinence in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To test two methods for reporting of fecal incontinence (FI) in people with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Consecutive patients from IBD clinics in six UK hospitals completed a short three-item case-finding survey about FI; they either completed the survey themselves or were asked the same questions face to face by a clinician. RESULTS: Of 1336 eligible patients with complete data (48% male; mean 43 years; 55% Crohn's disease, 41% ulcerative colitis), 772 were asked about FI face to face, and 564 self-completed the survey: FI was reported in 63% and 56%, respectively (p = 0.012). In regression analyses, those aged 51-60, having Crohn's disease and higher disease activity, were more likely to report FI. Of all respondents, 38.7% were interested in receiving help for their incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal incontinence affects the majority of people with IBD. Although more patients reported fecal incontinence when asked face to face than self-reported, routine screening by either method in clinical practice is recommended. Over one-third of patients with IBD want help for bowel control problems.

International Consensus Definition of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The low anterior resection syndrome score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of low anterior resection syndrome. Although the low anterior resection syndrome score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. DESIGN: This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons, and other health professionals from 5 regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in 3 languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of low anterior resection syndrome. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96%, and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to 8 symptoms and 8 consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. LIMITATIONS: Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first definition of low anterior resection syndrome developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of low anterior resection syndrome. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in low anterior resection syndrome over time and with intervention.

Burden of disease and adaptation to life in patients with Crohn's perianal fistula: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Perianal fistulas are a challenging manifestation of Crohn's disease. Best medical and surgical therapy results in only about a third of patients remaining in remission at one year on maintenance treatment and sustained healing is often elusive. There is little published data on patient perspective of living with the condition or coping strategies in the face of non-curative/non-definitive treatment. We aimed to understand the experience of living with perianal fistula(s) and their impact on quality of life and routine functioning. METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit participants with current / previous diagnosis of Crohn's anal fistulas, from national IBD / bowel disease charities. The "standards for reporting qualitative research" (SRQR) recommendations were followed. Unstructured individual face-to-face interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Early themes were reviewed by the study team including patient advocates, clinicians and qualitative researchers. RESULTS: Twelve interviews were conducted, achieving apparent data saturation. Three broad themes were uncovered: Burden of symptoms; Burden of treatment; and Impact on emotional, physical and social well-being. Each included several sub-themes, with considerable interplay between these. The impact of perianal fistula(s) on patients with CD is intense and wide reaching, negatively affecting intimate, close and social relationships. Fistulas cause losses in life and work-related opportunities, and treatments can be difficult to tolerate. CONCLUSION: Crohn's perianal fistulas exert a heavy negative physical and emotional impact on patients. These findings will inform development of a patient reported outcome measure to assess treatment effectiveness and quality of life for patients living with this challenging condition.

Developing a core outcome set for fistulising perianal Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of standardised outcomes hampers effective analysis and comparison of data when comparing treatments in fistulising perianal Crohn's disease (pCD). Development of a standardised set of outcomes would resolve these issues. This study provides the definitive core outcome set (COS) for fistulising pCD. DESIGN: Candidate outcomes were generated through a systematic review and patient interviews. Consensus was established via a three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on how important they felt it was in determining treatment success culminating in a final consensus meeting. Stakeholders were recruited nationally and grouped into three panels (surgeons and radiologists, gastroenterologists and IBD specialist nurses, and patients). Participants received feedback from their panel (in the second round) and all participants (in the third round) to allow refinement of their scores. RESULTS: A total of 295 outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and interviews that were categorised into 92 domains. 187 stakeholders (response rate 78.5%) prioritised 49 outcomes through a three-round Delphi study. The final consensus meeting of 41 experts and patients generated agreement on an eight domain COS. The COS comprised three patient-reported outcome domains (quality of life, incontinence and a combined score of patient priorities) and five clinician-reported outcome domains (perianal disease activity, development of new perianal abscess/sepsis, new/recurrent fistula, unplanned surgery and faecal diversion). CONCLUSION: A fistulising pCD COS has been produced by all key stakeholders. Application of the COS will reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting, thereby facilitating more meaningful comparisons between treatments, data synthesis and ultimately benefit patient care.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. METHODS: This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

Treatment of Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings. RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines . NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Early Detection for Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the early detection of colorectal cancer in four tiers to clinicians, patients, and caregivers. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings. RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more. CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

Patient Decision-Making About Emergency and Planned Stoma Surgery for IBD: A Qualitative Exploration of Patient and Clinician Perspectives.

Background: Many inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients worry about stoma-forming surgery (SFS), sometimes enduring poor bowel-related quality of life to avoid it. Anticipation of SFS and whether expectations match experience is underreported. This qualitative study explored influences on patients' SFS decision-making and compared preoperative concerns with postoperative outcomes. Methods: We purposively recruited participants with IBD from UK hospital outpatient and community sources, and IBD clinicians from public hospitals. Four focus groups, 29 semistructured patient participant interviews, and 18 clinician interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Participants had a current temporary, recently-reversed, or permanent stoma, or were stoma naive. Results: Four themes emerged: Preoperative concerns and expectations, Patient decision-making, Surgery and recovery, and Long-term outcomes. Participants and clinicians agreed about most preoperative concerns, that outcomes were often better than expected, and support from others with a stoma is beneficial. Patient decision-making involves multiple factors, including disease status. Some clinicians avoid discussing SFS, and the phrase 'last resort' can bias patient perceptions; others recommend early discussion, increasing dialogue when medical management becomes ineffective. The postoperative period is particularly challenging for patients. Stoma acceptance is influenced by personal perceptions and pre- and postoperative clinical and social support. Conclusion: Patients need balanced information on all treatment options, including surgery, from an early stage. Early multidisciplinary team dialogue about SFS, and contact with others living well with a stoma, could enable informed decision-making. Life with a stoma is often better than anticipated, improving quality of life and control. Ongoing specialist nursing support aids recovery and adjustment.

What Are the Top 10 Research Questions in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Priority Setting Partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many uncertainties remain regarding optimal therapies and strategies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Setting research priorities addressing therapies requires a partnership between health care professionals, patients and organisations supporting patients. We aimed to use the structure of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, which has been used in other disease areas, to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: The James Lind Priority Setting Partnership uses methods agreed and adopted in other disease areas to work with patients and clinicians: to identify uncertainties about treatments; to agree by consensus a prioritised list of uncertainties for research; then to translate these uncertainties into research questions which are amenable to hypothesis testing; and finally to take results to research commissioning bodies to be considered for funding. RESULTS: A total of 1636 uncertainties were collected in the initial survey from 531 respondents, which included 22% health care professionals and 78% patients and carers. Using the rigorously applied processes of the priority setting partnership, this list was distilled down to the top 10 research priorities for inflammatory bowel disease. The top priorities were: identifying treatment strategies to optimise efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness; and stratifying patients with regard to their disease course and treatment response. Diet and symptom control [pain, incontinence and fatigue] were also topics which were prioritised. CONCLUSIONS: A partnership involving multidisciplinary clinicians, patients and organisations supporting patients has identified the top 10 research priorities in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Faecal incontinence intervention study (FINS): self-management booklet information with or without nurse support to improve continence in people with inflammatory bowel disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease, comprising Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is a life-long currently incurable illness. It causes bouts of acute intestinal inflammation, in an unpredictable relapsing-remitting course, with bloody diarrhoea and extreme urgency to access a toilet. Faecal incontinence is a devastating social and hygiene problem, impacting heavily on quality of life and ability to work and socialise. Faecal incontinence affects 2-10 % of adults in the general population. People with inflammatory bowel disease have a high risk of incontinence with up to 74 % affected. No previous study has explored conservative interventions for these patients. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial will recruit 186 participants to answer the research question: does implementation of the UK nationally recommended guidance approach to stepwise management of faecal incontinence improve bowel control and quality of life in people with inflammatory bowel disease? We have worked with people with inflammatory bowel disease to translate this guidance into a condition-specific information booklet on managing incontinence. We will randomise participants to receive the booklet, or the booklet plus up to four 30-minute sessions with an inflammatory bowel disease specialist nurse. To be eligible, patients must be in disease remission and report incontinence. The primary outcome measure at 6 months after randomisation is the St Mark's incontinence score. Other outcomes include quality of life, MY-MOP (generic tool: participants set two goals for intervention, grading goals at baseline and then re-scoring after intervention) and EQ-5D-5 L to enable calculation of quality-adjusted life years. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Qualitative interviews will explore participant and health professionals' views on the interventions. DISCUSSION: Few high-quality studies of conservative interventions in inflammatory bowel disease, and none for faecal incontinence, have been conducted. We have collaborated with patients to design this study. Blinding to this behavioural intervention is not possible, but our self-report outcome measures with a degree of objectivity. There is genuine equipoise between the booklet only and booklet plus nurse arms, and the study will determine if additional support from a nurse is a crucial element in implementing advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinitrials.gov.uk: NCT02355834 (Date of registration: 12 December 2014). Protocol version: 4.0. 08.04.15.