COVID-19 and endoscopic services: the impact of delays in therapeutic colonoscopies on patients

Time to Therapy May Not Impact Diagnosis Upstaging in Patients Referred for Management of Luminal Gastrointestinal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted endoscopy practice. Recommendations were to postpone elective cases, including procedures for removal of luminal neoplasia. This provided a natural experiment to evaluate outcomes related to these decisions and the impact of time to procedure on change in histology.

AIMS

The primary aim is to examine time to endoscopy for therapy of colorectal polyps and Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia and oncologic outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of individuals referred for endoscopic therapy of advanced colorectal polyps and dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) between July 2019 and January 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate whether time to therapeutic exam was associated with a change in histology. Time from index to therapeutic exam before versus after the start of the pandemic (March 20, 2020) was compared using a Cox regression.

RESULTS

There were 310 patients (56% male, mean age 65) who were referred for colon polyps (n = 256) and BE-related neoplasia (n = 54). The median time to therapeutic exam was 78 days (range 4-718). Time to therapy was shorter for colon polyp cases completed after versus before the pandemic (HR: 1.49, 95% CI 1.14-1.96). The pandemic was not associated with a difference in time to exam for BE. Change in histology from index to therapeutic exam was noted in 51 cases (16.5%) and was mostly upstaging (70.6%). There was no association between time to therapeutic exam, sex, or timing related to the pandemic on the probability of being upstaged for colon polyps or BE.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 1 in 5 cases had a change in histology from index to therapeutic exam, and there was no delay related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that procedures for removal of advanced colon polyps or dysplastic BE can potentially be postponed with minimal impact, helping guide triaging decisions going forward.

Noninvasive Assessment of Postoperative Disease Recurrence in Crohn's Disease: A Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study on Behalf of the Italian Group for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy (CS) is the gold standard to assess postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD). However, CS is invasive and may be poorly tolerated by patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of a noninvasive approach in detecting POR, using the endoscopic Rutgeerts' score (RS) as the reference standard.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with CD who underwent ileo-cecal resection were prospectively enrolled in 3 referral Italian centers. Patients underwent CS and bowel ultrasound within 1 year of surgery. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to assess the correlation between noninvasive parameters and endoscopic recurrence, defined by a RS ≥2.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were enrolled. Sixty patients (66%) experienced endoscopic POR. The multivariable analysis identified bowel wall thickness (BWT) per 1-mm increase (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-4.89; P = .012), the presence of mesenteric lymph nodes (OR, 15.63; 95% CI, 1.48-164.54; P = .022), and fecal calprotectin (FC) values ≥50 mcg/g (OR, 8.58; 95% CI, 2.45-29.99; P < .001) as independent predictors for endoscopic recurrence. The presence of lymph nodes or the combination of BWT ≥3 mm and FC values ≥50 mcg/g correctly classified 56% and 75% of patients, with less than 5% of patients falsely classified as having endoscopic recurrence. Conversely, the combination of BWT <3 mm and FC <50 mcg/g correctly classified 74% of patients with only 4.5% of patients falsely classified as not having endoscopic recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

A noninvasive approach combining bowel ultrasound and FC can be used with confidence for detecting POR in patients with CD without the requirement for CS.

Extended delay in endoscopic mucosal resection is not associated with adverse outcomes: Findings from the COVID-19 pandemic

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of delayed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps on health outcomes.

Patients and methods A bidirectional cohort study was completed. A baseline group consisting of all EMRs performed within a 15-month period before a province-wide, government-mandated cessation of EMR procedures due to the global pandemic was compared to EMRs impacted by the shutdown, defined as the COVID-19-delayed group. The primary outcome was the incidence of malignant polyps. Secondary outcomes included technical success, polyp recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy, advanced polyp histology, probability of meeting endoscopic criteria for adequate resection for malignant polyps, metastatic colorectal cancer, and complications.

Results A total of 268 EMR procedures were included in the study cohort, of which 208 formed the baseline group and 60 were in the COVID-19-delayed group. The median (IQR) patient age was 72 (13.0) and 113 (41.2 %) were females. The median (IQR) wait time was 92 days (87.8) in the baseline group and 191 days (127.8) in the COVID-19-delayed group (P < 0.001). Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of malignant polyps, technical success, polyp recurrence on follow-up colonoscopy, advanced polyp histology, adequate endoscopic resection for malignant polyps, metastatic colorectal cancer, or complications between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all outcomes).

Conclusions A longer wait time for EMR of colorectal polyps, increasing from a median of 92 to 191 days, was not associated with worse outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Following the official announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 and decreased activity of healthcare systems, relocation of resources, and the possible reluctance of patients to seek medical help, colorectal cancer patients were exposed to significant risks. Given that colon cancer is the third most common cancer and the second deadliest cancer in the world, its timely diagnosis and treatment are necessary to reduce costs and improve quality of life and patient survival. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A comprehensive search performed on June 2021 in various databases, including Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Keywords such as "diagnosis," "treatment," "coronavirus disease-19," "COVID-19," "coronavirus disease," "SARS-CoV-2 infection," "SARS-CoV-2," "2019-nCoV," "coronavirus, 2019 novel," "SARS-CoV-2 virus," severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2," "COVID-19," "COVID-19, coronavirus disease 19," "SARS coronavirus 2," "colorectal neoplasm," and "colorectal cancer " was used individually or a combination of these words. All retrieved articles were entered into a database on EndNote X7. Then, studies were first selected by title and then by abstract, and at the end, full texts were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 850 studies, 43 were identified as eligible. According to studies, the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and the number of diagnostic procedures have decreased. Emergency visits due to obstruction or perforation of the large intestine or in advanced stages of cancer have increased, and a delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer has reported from 5.4 to 26%. Treatment of colorectal cancer has also decreased significantly or has been delayed, interrupted, or stopped. This reduction and delay have been observed in all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, and long-term radiation therapy; only cases of emergency surgery and short-term radiotherapy has increased. The waiting time for hospitalization and the length of hospital stay after surgery has been reported to be higher. Changes in patients' treatment plans and complete to partial cessation of hospitals activities-that provided treatment services-were reported.

CONCLUSION

According to the reduction in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer due to the COVID-19 pandemic, compensating for the reduction and preventing the continuation of this declining trend, requires serious and effective interventions to prevent its subsequent consequences, including referrals of people with advanced stages and emergency conditions, increasing treatment costs and reducing the quality of life and patients survival.

Delays in gender affirming healthcare due to COVID-19 are mitigated by expansion of telemedicine

BACKGROUND

Gender-affirming healthcare is vital for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients, and during the pandemic, accessing healthcare became challenging. Hypothesizing that many had procedures postponed, we sought to characterize the impact of the pandemic on TGD patients.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining surveys and interviews; Duke patients were identified by ICD-10 codes, while non-Duke (national) patients were recruited through online social media.

RESULTS

All specialties increased telemedicine usage during the pandemic. Duke surgical patients reported a nearly three-fold increase in telemedicine access. COVID-19 symptoms were reported by 24% of Duke and 20% of national patients; barriers to urgent care included the fear of discrimination (27%).

CONCLUSION

Delays were experienced in all domains of care, mitigated in part by telemedicine. Nearly one-third of patients cite discrimination as a barrier to care. Though pandemic-related expansion of telemedicine may be a marker of success, significant barriers still complicate delivery of healthcare.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases.

METHODS

A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs.

RESULTS

In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

Double Face Mask Use for COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control Among Medical Students at Makerere University: A Cross-Section Survey

INTRODUCTION

The second wave of COVID-19 greatly affected the health care and education systems in Uganda, due to the infection itself and the lockdowns instituted. Double masking has been suggested as a safe alternative to double-layered masks, where the quality of the latter may not be guaranteed. This study aimed to determine patterns of double mask use among undergraduate medical students at Makerere University, Uganda.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire. All students enrolled at the College of Health Sciences; Makerere University received the link to this questionnaire to participate. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with double mask use.

RESULTS

A total of 348 participants were enrolled. The majority (61.8%) were male; the median age was 23 (range: 32) years. Up to 10.3%, 42%, and 4.3% reported past COVID-19 positive test, history of COVID-19 symptoms, and having comorbidities, respectively. Up to 40.8% had been vaccinated against COVID-19. More than half (68.7%) believed double masking was superior to single masking for COVID-19 IPC, but only 20.5% reported double masking. Participants with a past COVID-19 positive test [aOR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8, p = 0.026] and participants who believed double masks had a superior protective advantage [aOR: 20; 95% CI: 4.9-86.2, p < 0.001] were more likely to double mask. Lack of trust in the quality of masks (46.5%) was the most frequent motivation for double masking, while excessive sweating (68.4%), high cost of masks (66.4%), and difficulty in breathing (66.1%) were the major barriers.

CONCLUSION

Very few medical students practice double masking to prevent COVID-19. Coupled with inconsistencies in the availability of the recommended four-layered masks in Uganda and increased exposure in lecture rooms and clinical rotations, medical students may be at risk of contracting COVID-19.

A Patient-Prioritized Agenda for Information Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at risk for complications due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a qualitative study to better understand IBD patient experiences and concerns when navigating the COVID-19 pandemic, with the goal of prioritizing patients' information needs.

METHODS

We conducted a series of semistructured virtual focus groups at 6 months, then member checking focus groups 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. We included questions on patients' experiences navigating the pandemic with IBD, differences in their experience as compared to peers, their concerns and fears, as well as preferred information sources. Transcribed focus groups were coded and content analyzed to summarize key areas of interest and identify themes. We focused on 4 areas in our content analysis process: fears, challenges, information preferences, and research questions.

RESULTS

A total of 26 IBD patient participants were included in the initial focus groups. Findings highlighted the many challenges faced by patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from access (bathrooms, medications, healthcare) to significant fears and concerns surrounding medications used for IBD worsening risks of COVID-19. Research questions of importance to patients centered on understanding risks for COVID-19 complications, particularly pertaining to medication utilization, with a shift over time toward understanding COVID-19 vaccination. In our member checking focus groups (n = 8 participants), themes were reiterated, with a central focus of research questions pertaining to COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Information needs for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic centered upon understanding disease-specific risks. Identified challenges and fears will inform future research agendas and communication with patients.