3 research outputs found

    Comparative acceptability and perceived clinical utility of monitoring tools: A nationwide survey of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

    No full text
    Background: Objective control of intestinal inflammation during inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is becoming the main driver for medical treatment. However, the monitoring tools-related burden remains poorly investigated. We aimed to evaluate their comparative acceptability and utility according to patients with IBD. Methods: After a preliminary phase, the final questionnaire encompassing self-administered and physician questionnaires was prospectively and consecutively submitted to 916 patients with IBD from 20 public and private centers. Acceptability and utility visual analog scales (VAS) were expressed as median with interquartile range. Results: Regarding the group of patients with Crohn's disease (n = 618), venipuncture (VAS = 9.3 [8.8-9.7]) and ultrasonography (VAS = 9.3 [8.7-9.7]) were the most acceptable tools (P < 0.0001, for each comparison), whereas rectosigmoidoscopy was the least acceptable tool (VAS = 4.4 [1.2-7.3]) (P < 0.0001, for each comparison). Wireless capsule endoscopy (VAS = 8.5 [5.2-9.3]), magnetic resonance enterocolonography (VAS = 8.0 [5.0-9.2]), and stools collection (VAS = 7.7 [4.6-9.3]) were more acceptable than colonoscopy (VAS = 6.7 [4.3-8.9]) (P < 0.0001, for each comparison). The acceptability was assessed in 298 patients with ulcerative colitis for venipuncture (VAS = 9.4 [8.8-9.7]), stools collection (VAS = 8.1 [5.7-9.4]), colonoscopy (VAS = 7.5 [4.7-9.2]), and rectosigmoidoscopy (VAS = 6.7 [2.8-9.1]); (P < 0.001 for each comparison). All monitoring tools were considered as highly useful by patients with IBD. Decreased acceptability was related to embarrassment for the collection/transport of stools (60.7%), bowel cleansing (76.3%) for colonoscopy, abdominal discomfort (51.3%) and rectal enema (36.6%) for rectosigmoidoscopy, bowel distension (48.3%) for magnetic resonance enterocolonography, and potential capsule retention (21.4%) for wireless capsule endoscopy. Conclusions: Among the IBD monitoring tools, endoscopy demonstrated the lowest acceptability supporting the development of alternative modalities. Patients' information and examination conditions should be improved to ensure proper monitoring adherence

    High Risk of Anal and Rectal Cancer in Patients With Anal and/or Perianal Crohn’s Disease

    No full text
    International audienceBackground & AimsLittle is known about the magnitude of the risk of anal and rectal cancer in patients with anal and/or perineal Crohn’s disease. We aimed to assess the risk of anal and rectal cancer in patients with Crohn’s perianal disease followed up in the Cancers Et Surrisque AssociĂ© aux Maladies Inflammatoires Intestinales En France (CESAME) cohort.MethodsWe collected data from 19,486 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) enrolled in the observational CESAME study in France, from May 2004 through June 2005; 14.9% of participants had past or current anal and/or perianal Crohn’s disease. Subjects were followed up for a median time of 35 months (interquartile range, 29–40 mo). To identify risk factors for anal cancer in the total CESAME population, we performed a case-control study in which participants were matched for age and sex.ResultsAmong the total IBD population, 8 patients developed anal cancer and 14 patients developed rectal cancer. In the subgroup of 2911 patients with past or current anal and/or perianal Crohn’s lesions at cohort entry, 2 developed anal squamous-cell carcinoma, 3 developed perianal fistula–related adenocarcinoma, and 6 developed rectal cancer. The corresponding incidence rates were 0.26 per 1000 patient-years for anal squamous-cell carcinoma, 0.38 per 1000 patient-years for perianal fistula–related adenocarcinoma, and 0.77 per 1000 patient-years for rectal cancer. Among the 16,575 patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease without anal or perianal lesions, the incidence rate of anal cancer was 0.08 per 1000 patient-years and of rectal cancer was 0.21 per 1000 patient-years. Among factors tested by univariate conditional regression (IBD subtype, disease duration, exposure to immune-suppressive therapy, presence of past or current anal and/or perianal lesions), the presence of past or current anal and/or perianal lesions at cohort entry was the only factor significantly associated with development of anal cancer (odds ratio, 11.2; 95% CI, 1.18-551.51; P = .03).ConclusionsIn an analysis of data from the CESAME cohort in France, patients with anal and/or perianal Crohn’s disease have a high risk of anal cancer, including perianal fistula–related cancer, and a high risk of rectal cancer
    corecore