Cardiovascular morbidity and the use of inhaled bronchodilators

We used the Manitoba Health database to examine the relationship between use of inhaled respiratory drugs in people with chronic obstructive respiratory diseases and cardiovascular hospitalizations from 1996 through 2000. The drugs examined were beta agonists [BA], ipratropium bromide IB, and inhaled steroids (ICS). End points were first hospitalizations for supraventricular tachycardia, myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke. A nested case control analysis was employed comparing people with and without cardiovascular events. Cases and controls were matched for gender and age, and conditional logistic regression was used in multivariate analysis considering other respiratory drugs, respiratory diagnosis and visit frequency, non-respiratory, non-cardiac comorbidities, and receipt of drugs for cardiovascular disease

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services. DESIGN: Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance. RESULTS: 74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18040196; Results

The impact of endoscopist performance and patient factors on distal adenoma detection and colorectal cancer incidence

Abstract Background High quality endoscopy is key for detecting and removing precursor lesions to colorectal cancer (CRC). Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) measure endoscopist performance. Improving other components of examinations could increase adenoma detection. Aims To investigate how endoscopist performance at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) affects adenoma detection and CRC incidence. Methods Among 34,139 participants receiving FS screening by the main endoscopist at one of 13 centres in the UK FS Screening Trial, median follow-up was 17 years. Factors examined included family history of CRC, bowel preparation quality, insertion and withdrawal time, bowel segment reached, patient pain and ADR. Odds ratios (OR) for distal adenoma detection were estimated by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HR) for distal CRC incidence were estimated by Cox regression. Results At screening, 4,104 participants had distal adenomas detected and 168 participants developed distal CRC during follow-up. In multivariable models, a family history of CRC (yes vs. no: OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.21–1.62), good or adequate bowel preparation quality (vs. excellent: OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.74–0.95; OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.49–0.65, respectively) and longer insertion and withdrawal times (≥ 4.00 vs. < 2.00 min: OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.68–2.29; OR 32.79, 95%CI 28.22–38.11, respectively) were associated with adenoma detection. Being screened by endoscopists with low or intermediate ADRs, compared to high ADRs, was positively associated with CRC incidence (multivariable: HR 4.71, 95%CI 2.65–8.38; HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.22–3.81, respectively). Conclusions Bowel preparation quality and longer insertion and withdrawal time are key for improving distal adenoma detection. Higher ADRs were associated with a lower risk of distal CRC

Additional file 1 of The impact of endoscopist performance and patient factors on distal adenoma detection and colorectal cancer incidence

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Reasons for repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy. Supplementary Table 2. Protocol guidelines for the categorisation of bowel preparation quality. Supplementary Table 3. Endoscopist variables by endoscopist for negative examinations*. Supplementary Table 4. Patient-reported pain and insertion time by extent of examination in negative examinations*. Supplementary Table 5. Reaching the splenic flexure in negative examinations* by age, sex, bowel preparation quality, and pain. Supplementary Table 6. Detection of multiple and/or advanced distal adenomas by patient factors and endoscopist variables. Supplementary Figure 1. Cumulative distal colorectal cancer incidence in all eligible participants by patient factors and endoscopist variables (the full dataset)

Is whole-colon investigation by colonoscopy, computerised tomography colonography or barium enema necessary for all patients with colorectal cancer symptoms, and for which patients would flexible sigmoidoscopy suffice? A retrospective cohort study

Background: For patients referred to hospital with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC), it is current standard clinical practice to conduct an examination of the whole colon and rectum. However, studies have shown that an examination of the distal colorectum using flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) can be a safe and clinically effective investigation for some patients. These findings require validation in a multicentre study. Objectives: To investigate the links between patient symptoms at presentation and CRC risk by subsite, and to provide evidence of whether or not FS is an effective alternative to whole-colon investigation (WCI) in patients whose symptoms do not suggest proximal or obstructive disease. Design: A multicentre retrospective study using data collected prospectively from two randomised controlled trials. Additional data were collected from trial diagnostic procedure reports and hospital records. CRC diagnoses within 3 years of referral were sourced from hospital records and national cancer registries via the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Setting: Participants were recruited to the two randomised controlled trials from 21 NHS hospitals in England between 2004 and 2007. Participants: Men and women aged ≥ 55 years referred to secondary care for the investigation of symptoms suggestive of CRC. Main outcome measure: Diagnostic yield of CRC at distal (to the splenic flexure) and proximal subsites by symptoms/clinical signs at presentation. Results: The data set for analysis comprised 7380 patients, of whom 59% were women (median age 69 years, interquartile range 62–76 years). Change in bowel habit (CIBH) was the most frequently presenting symptom (73%), followed by rectal bleeding (38%) and abdominal pain (29%); 26% of patients had anaemia. CRC was diagnosed in 551 patients (7.5%): 424 (77%) patients with distal CRC, 122 (22%) patients with cancer proximal to the descending colon and five patients with both proximal and distal CRC. Proximal cancer was diagnosed in 96 out of 2021 (4.8%) patients with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. The yield of proximal cancer in patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass who presented with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom was low (0.5%). These low-risk groups for proximal cancer accounted for 41% (3032/7380) of the cohort; only three proximal cancers were diagnosed in 814 low-risk patients examined by FS (diagnostic yield 0.4%). Limitations: A limitation to this study is that changes to practice since the trial ended, such as new referral guidelines and improvements in endoscopy quality, potentially weaken the generalisability of our findings. Conclusions: Symptom profiles can be used to determine whether or not WCI is necessary. Most proximal cancers were diagnosed in patients who presented with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. In patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass, proximal cancer diagnoses were rare in those with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom. FS alone should be a safe and clinically effective investigation in these patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of symptom-based tailoring of diagnostic investigations for CRC is recommended. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (?10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice.METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621.FINDINGS: 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p&lt;0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (&lt;10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare.INTERPRETATION: Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy.FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care