Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics

Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation

Background and study aims Reduction of colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality is one of the primary objectives of colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) are critical outcome parameters. Analysis of PCCRC rates can validate quality assurance measures in colonoscopy. We assessed the effectiveness of implementing a gastroenterologist-led quality framework that monitors key procedure quality indicators (i.e., bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rates, or patient satisfaction) by comparing the PCCRC rate before and after implementation. Patients and methods Individuals who had a colonoscopy between 2010 and 2017 at a single tertiary center in Queensland, Australia, were included and divided into two groups: baseline (2010-2014) and redesign phase (2015-2017). Data linkage of the state-wide cancer registry and hospital records enabled identification of subjects who developed colorectal cancers within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy. Costs associated with quality improvement were assessed for effectiveness. Results A total of 19,383 individuals had a colonoscopy during the study period. Seventeen PCCRCs were detected. The PCCRC rate was 0.376 per 1,000 person-years and the average 5-year PCCRC risk ranged from 0.165% to 0.051%. The rate of PCCRCs was higher at the beginning (0.166%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15%-0.17%) compared with the later period with full implementation of quality control measures (0.027%; 95% CI 0.023%-0.03%). The quality process determined an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$5,670.53 per PCCRC avoided. Conclusions This large cohort study demonstrated that a formal gastroenterologist-led quality assurance framework embedded into the routine operations of a clinical department not only reduces interval cancers but is also cost-effective regarding life years gained and quality-adjusted life years.

Efficacy and safety of three-dimensional magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal and small bowel examination

BACKGROUND

Magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) showed the feasibility for upper gastrointestinal examination. To further enhance the performance of conventional MACE, it is necessary to provide quality-improved and three-dimensional images. The aim of this clinical study was to determine the efficacy and safety of novel three-dimensional MACE (3D MACE) for upper gastrointestinal and small bowel examination at once.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized, and sequential examination study (KCT0007114) at Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital. Adult patients who visited for upper endoscopy were included. The study protocol was conducted in two stages. First, upper gastrointestinal examination was performed using 3D MACE, and a continuous small bowel examination was performed by conventional method of capsule endoscopy. Two hours later, an upper endoscopy was performed for comparison with 3D MACE examination. The primary outcome was confirmation of major gastric structures (esophagogastric junction, cardia/fundus, body, angle, antrum, and pylorus). Secondary outcomes were confirmation of esophagus and duodenal bulb, accuracy for gastric lesions, completion of small bowel examination, 3D image reconstruction of gastric lesion, and safety.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were finally enrolled. The examination time of 3D MACE was 14.84 ± 3.02 minutes and upper endoscopy was 5.22 ± 2.39 minutes. The confirmation rate of the six major gastric structures was 98.6% in 3D MACE and 100% in upper endoscopy. Gastric lesions were identified in 43 patients during 3D MACE, and 40 patients during upper endoscopy (Sensitivity 0.97). 3D reconstructed images were acquired for all lesions inspected by 3D MACE. The continuous small bowel examination by 3D MACE was completed in 94.5%. 3D MACE showed better overall satisfaction (3D MACE 9.55 ± 0.79 and upper endoscopy 7.75 ± 2.34, p<0.0001). There were no aspiration or significant adverse event or capsule retention in the 3D MACE examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel 3D MACE system is more advanced diagnostic modality than the conventional MACE. And it is possible to perform serial upper gastrointestinal and small bowel examination as a non-invasive and one-step test. It would be also served as a bridge to pan-endoscopy.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on colorectal cancer diagnosis and prognosis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Our aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown).

RESULTS

We observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.

COVID-19 und gastrointestinale Endoskopie –angepasste Strategien im pandemischen Wandel

Im Dezember 2019 begann mit dem Ausbruch der Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) eine neue Herausforderung in vielen Bereichen der Medizin und des persönlichen Lebens. Der individuelle Schutz der professionellen Leistungsbringer vor der Infektion wurde zur Sicherung der Leistungsfähigkeit des Gesundheitssystems essenziell. Neue Arbeiten definierten die obere gastrointestinale Endoskopie als aerosolgenerierende Prozedur (AGP), die insbesondere aufgrund des engen Kontakts für das Personal ein erhöhtes Infektionsrisiko darstellt. Da das „severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2“ (SARS-CoV-2) in erster Linie durch Aerosole und/oder Tröpfchen übertragen wird, besteht die Notwendigkeit der Verwendung von persönlicher Schutzausrüstung („personal protective equipment“, PPE). Empfehlungen der Leitlinien haben entsprechend früh PPE als infektionspräventive Maßnahmen empfohlen. Die strikte Verwendung von PPE hat sich mit der Erfahrung aus nunmehr 3 Jahren als effektive Präventionsstrategie bewiesen. Mit der Einführung der Vakzinierung gegen SARS-CoV‑2, einer zunehmenden Immunisierung der Bevölkerung und einem sich ändernden pandemischen Infektionsgeschehen haben sich die Anforderungen für endoskopische Abteilungen in den Krankenhäusern und in der ambulanten Versorgung stetig geändert. In der postpandemischen Situation bestehen nur noch geringe Einschränkungen, die die neue „postpandemische Realität“ beeinflussen und die Durchführung endoskopischer Leistungen ohne größere Restriktionen ermöglichen. Die Anpassungen der infektionspräventiven Strategien im Verlauf der Pandemie und die erhobenen wissenschaftlichen Daten mit folgender Anpassung der aktuellen Empfehlungen bis zum heutigen Tag werden in dieser Arbeit zusammengefasst und diskutiert.

Standardising policy and technology responses in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic: a comparative and conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

The initial policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic has differed widely across countries. Such variability in government interventions has made it difficult for policymakers and health research systems to compare what has happened and the effectiveness of interventions across nations. Timely information and analysis are crucial to addressing the lag between the pandemic and government responses to implement targeted interventions to alleviate the impact of the pandemic.

METHODS

To examine the effect government interventions and technological responses have on epidemiological and economic outcomes, this policy paper proposes a conceptual framework that provides a qualitative taxonomy of government policy directives implemented in the immediate aftermath of a pandemic announcement and before vaccines are implementable. This framework assigns a gradient indicating the intensity and extent of the policy measures and applies the gradient to four countries that share similar institutional features but different COVID-19 experiences: Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

RESULTS

Using the categorisation framework allows qualitative information to be presented, and more specifically the gradient can show the dynamic impact of policy interventions on specific outcomes. We have observed that the policy categorisation described here can be used by decision-makers to examine the impacts of major viral outbreaks such as SARS-CoV-2 on health and economic outcomes over time. The framework allows for a visualisation of the frequency and comparison of dominant policies and provides a conceptual tool to assess how dominant interventions (and innovations) affect different sets of health and non-health related outcomes during the response phase to the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers and health researchers should converge toward an optimal set of policy interventions to minimize the costs of the pandemic (i.e., health and economic), and facilitate coordination across governance levels before effective vaccines are produced. The proposed framework provides a useful tool to direct health research system resources and build a policy benchmark for future viral outbreaks where vaccines are not readily available.