Bowel preparation for colonoscopy with magnesium sulphate and low-volume polyethylene glycol

The impact of 6 years of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program on colorectal cancer incidence and 5-year survival

We aimed to assess the impact of the first three rounds of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP) on CRC incidence and mortality in Slovenia. In NCCSP, we use two fecal immune tests (FITs) and if test is positive patient is referred to colonoscopy. From 2009, we invite Slovenian residents aged 50-69 years, one screening round takes 2 years. The response rate was from 56.9 to 59.9%. FIT was positive in 6.0-6.2% (more in older patients and in men; P < 0.05). The adenoma detection rate was >51.3% (more in men; P < 0.01). In NCCSP, 70.3% of all cancers diagnosed were in stages I and II, while 20.7% of all CRC were found in polyps resected during colonoscopies. Patients with positive first FIT have odds ratio 2.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.06-2.32] for advanced neoplasia and cancer compared to patients with two negative FITs. The incidence rate for CRC has dropped significantly after 6 years in population and in men (P < 0.01) but not in women. Five-year CRC survival was 31.3% higher if cancer was diagnosed in NCCSP (P < 0.05). After 6 years of NCCSP, the incidence rate for CRC has dropped significantly (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio for death from CRC was 3.84 higher (95% CI, 3.36-4.40; P < 0.001) in patients with cancer detected outside the program.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the addition of lubiprostone to bowel preparation before colonoscopy

AIM

Adequate bowel preparation is essential to the quality of colonoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of the addition of lubiprostone to the bowel preparation process prior to colonoscopy.

METHODS

Online databases, namely, PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library, were searched for randomized controlled trials that assessed the additive effect of lubiprostone on the quality of colon preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Each included study was evaluated by the Jadad score to assess the quality of the study. The primary outcome was bowel preparation efficacy, defined as the proportion of patients with an excellent or poor preparation. The secondary outcomes included the length of the colonoscopy, polyp detection, and any adverse effects.

RESULTS

In total, 5 articles published between 2008 and 2016 fulfilled the selection criteria. The addition of lubiprostone to the bowel cleansing process significantly increased the proportion of patients with an excellent preparation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-2.02, P < .00001) but did not decrease the procedural time or increase the polyp detection rate (mean difference = -0.52, 95% CI: -3.74-2.69, P = .75; RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.96-1.42, P = .13, respectively). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The addition of lubiprostone to the bowel preparation regimen prior to colonoscopy is effective and safe.

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including “westernized” diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain obstacles limiting the achievement of screening goals. Different modalities are available ranging from stool based tests to radiology and endoscopy with varying sensitivity and specificity. However, the availability of these tests is limited to areas with high economic resources. Recently, FDA approved a blood-based test (Epi procolon^®) for CRC screening. This blood based test may serve to increase the participation and adherence rates. Hence, leading to increase in colon cancer detection and prevention. This article will discuss various CRC screening tests with a particular focus on the data regarding the new approved blood test. Finally, we will propose an algorithm for a simple cost-effective CRC screening program.

Results of the FIT-based National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Slovenia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the western world.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the first round of fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based National CRC screening program (NCSP).

METHODS

In the NCSP conducted in Slovenia, a FIT and colonoscopy for those tested positive was used. The NCSP central unit sent 536,709 invitations to Slovenian residents age 50 to 69 years old between 2009 and 2011. The adherence rate was 56.9% (303,343 participants). FIT was positive in 6.2% (15,310) of the participants (men, 7.8%; women, 5.0%; P<0.01). A total of 13,919 unsedated colonoscopies were performed with the cecal intubation rate of 97.8%.

RESULTS

The overall adenoma detection rate was 51.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 50.5%-52.1%] of which 61.0% (95% CI, 59.9%-62.1%) was in men, and 39.1% (95% CI, 37.8%-40.3%) in women (P<0.01). The mean number of adenoma per positive colonoscopy was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.90-1.97). Adenoma, advanced adenoma, or cancer were found in 7732 (55.5%) colonoscopies. A total of 862 (6.2%) CRC cases were found. Only 161 (18.7%) carcinomas were situated in the right colon. A total of 597 (70.2%) patients with cancer were in the early clinical stages (N, negative; 194 22.8%) of all cancers were cured with only endoscopic resection.

CONCLUSIONS

In the NCSP, CRC was found in 6.2% of those participants attending colonoscopy, with 81.3% of carcinomas found in the left colon. A localized clinical stage was found in 70.2% participants. In 22.8% of CRC patients, cancer was cured with endoscopic resection only.

Predictors of suboptimal bowel preparation in asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy

AIM

To identify risk factors for a suboptimal preparation among a population undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the University of Michigan and Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital records from 2009 to identify patients age 50 and older who underwent screening or surveillance procedure and had resection of polyps less than 1 cm in size and no more than 2 polyps. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or a family history of colorectal cancer were excluded. Suboptimal procedures were defined as procedure preparations categorized as fair, poor or inadequate by the endoscopist. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of suboptimal preparation.

RESULTS

Of 4427 colonoscopies reviewed, 2401 met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of our population, 16% had a suboptimal preparation. African Americans were 70% more likely to have a suboptimal preparation (95%CI: 1.2-2.4). Univariable analysis revealed that narcotic and tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) use, diabetes, prep type, site (VA vs non-VA), and presence of a gastroenterology (GI) fellow were associated with suboptimal prep quality. In a multivariable model controlling for gender, age, ethnicity, procedure site and presence of a GI fellow, diabetes [odds ratio (OR) = 2.3; 95%CI: 1.6-3.2], TCA use (OR = 2.5; 95%CI: 1.3-4.9), narcotic use (OR = 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2-2.5) and Miralax-Gatorade prep vs 4L polyethylene glycol 3350 (OR = 0.6; 95%CI: 0.4-0.9) were associated with a suboptimal prep quality.

CONCLUSION

Diabetes, narcotics use and TCA use were identified as predictors of poor preparation in screening colonoscopies while Miralax-Gatorade preps were associated with better bowel preparation.

Combination could be another tool for bowel preparation?

Optimal bowel preparation increases the cecal intubation rate and detection of neoplastic lesions while decreasing the procedural time and procedural-related complications. Although high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is the most frequently used preparation for bowel cleansing, patients are often unwilling to take PEG solution due to its large volume, poor palatability, and high incidence of adverse events, such as abdominal bloating and nausea. Other purgatives include osmotic agents (e.g., sodium phosphate, magnesium citrate, and sodium sulfate), stimulant agents (e.g., senna, bisacodyl, and sodium picosulfate), and prokinetic agents (e.g., cisapride, mosapride, and itopride). A combination of PEG with an osmotic, stimulant, or prokinetic agent could effectively reduce the PEG solution volume and increase patients’ adherence. Some such solutions have been found in several published studies to not be inferior to PEG alone in terms of bowel cleansing quality. Although combination methods showed similar efficacy and safety, the value of these studies is limited by shortcomings in study design. New effective and well-tolerated combination preparations are required, in addition to rigorous new validated studies.

Cost-analysis model of colonoscopy preparation using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS)

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to (1) develop a cost model for colonoscopy preparation among patients referred for colonoscopy using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and generic polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS), (2) examine cost savings associated with OSS vs PEG-ELS, and (3) assess the robustness of the cost model.

METHODS

Efficacy of each agent was based on the results of a 541-patient clinical trial comparing OSS to PEG-ELS. Cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs were calculated from OptumHealth Reporting & Insights claims data for 2010-Q12013. In the model, patients' colonoscopies were tracked over a 25 or 35 year time period until the patients reached age 75. The difference per patient per year (PPPY) in total cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs over the time horizon between the OSS and PEG-ELS cohort was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost model.

RESULTS

The model showed lower cost for OSS patients over the time horizon. Total PPPY costs were $280.34 for the OSS cohort and $296.36 for the PEG-ELS cohort, resulting in a cost saving of $16.01 PPPY for the OSS cohort. This was due primarily to OSS patients having fewer colonoscopies (OSS: 0.158 vs PEG-ELS: 0.170 PPPY). Over the time horizon, cost savings of $4 763 335 were observed among 10, 000 OSS patients. Cost savings switched from OSS to PEG-ELS cohort in four cases: (1) base-case cost of a completed colonoscopy decreased by 75%, (2) base-case cost of OSS increased to over $143 per usage, (3) all non-completers were lost to follow-up, and (4) OSS bowel preparation quality dropped below PEG-ELS to 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

From a payer's perspective, the model showed that the use of OSS as the cleansing agent resulted in potential cost savings compared with PEG-ELS. Cost savings under OSS remained under various sensitivity analyses.

Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Aspects

Colonoscopy represents a very important diagnostic modality for screening for colorectal cancer, because it has the ability to both detect and effectively remove pro-malignant and malignant lesions. It is recommended by almost all international and national gastroenterology and cancer societies, as an initial screening modality or, following a positive fecal occult blood test, to be performed every 10 years in individuals of average risk starting from the age of 50. However, a significant problem is the so-called post-screening (interval) polyps and cancers found some years after the index colonoscopy. In order to reduce the rate of interval cancers it is extremely necessary to optimize the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. Bowel preparation is of paramount importance for both accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment of lesions found on colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation could be significantly improved by splitting the dose regimens, a strategy that has been shown to be superior to single-dose regimen. A good endoscopic technique and optimal withdrawal time offering adequate time for inspection, would further optimize the rate of cecal intubation and the number of lesions detected. During the last years, sophisticated devices have been introduced that would further facilitate cecal intubation. The percentage of total colonoscopies is now super-passing the level of 95 % allowing the adenoma detection rate to be greater than the suggestive level of 25 % in men and 15 % in women. This review aims to provide the reader with the current knowledge concerning indications, usefulness, limitations and future perspectives of this probably most important screening technique for colorectal cancer available today.