Kjetil Garborg

Results of faecal donor instillation therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea

Abstract We report a success rate of 83% with faecal donor instillation therapy (FDIT) in this retrospective study of 40 patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD), treated at a medium sized Norwegian hospital from 1994 through 2008. The stool transplant was instilled either in the duodenum through a gastroscope or in the colon through a colonoscope with next of kin or other household member as donor. In 29 cases (73%) the first treatment was successful, with no documented recurrence of diarrhoeal disease within 80 days. Of the 11 patients failing to respond to the first instillation treatment, 6 patients received a second instillation, 4 of which were successful. A total of 33 patients (83%) were successfully treated with FDIT. Of the 7 non-responders, 5 were seriously ill due to long lasting diarrhoeal disease and co-morbidity and died within 80 days after the procedure, and 2 were believed to have inflammatory bowel disease with response to corticosteroid treatment. No adverse effects of FDIT were observed. In our experience the procedure is easy to perform, well tolerated, effective, and may be a valuable treatment option in selected cases.

The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial. STUDY DESIGN Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. POWER ANALYSIS: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population.

Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Although some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist. OBJECTIVE To investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION A population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014. INTERVENTIONS Colonoscopy screening or no screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Participation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist. RESULTS Of 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Colonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

Current status of screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. A well-defined precursor lesion (adenoma) and a long preclinical course make CRC a candidate for screening. This paper reviews the current evidence for the most important tests that are widely used or under development for population-based screening. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this narrative review, we scrutinized all papers we have been aware of, and carried out searches in PubMed and Cochrane library for relevant literature. RESULTS Two screening methods have been shown to reduce CRC mortality in randomised trials: repetitive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) reduces CRC mortality by 16%; once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) by 28%. FS screening also reduces CRC incidence (by 18%), FOBT does not. Colonoscopy screening has a potentially larger effect on CRC incidence and mortality, but randomised trials are lacking. New screening methods are on the horizon but need to be tested in large clinical trials before implementation in population screening. CONCLUSIONS FS screening reduces CRC incidence and CRC mortality by removal of adenomas; FOBT reduces CRC mortality by early detection of cancer. Several other tests are available, but none has been evaluated in randomised trials. Screening strategies differ considerably across countries.

Water exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Compared with air insufflation, water exchange and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation have been shown to reduce colonoscopy discomfort; however, head-to-head studies of the two methods are lacking. We aimed to compare water exchange and CO2 insufflation directly with regard to pain during primary unsedated colonoscopy. METHODS Patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy at three centers in Norway and Poland were randomized 1:1 to water exchange or CO2 insufflation during colonoscope insertion. Patients were blinded to group allocation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients reporting moderate or severe procedural pain on a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS-4) at discharge. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients reporting no pain on the VRS-4. RESULTS A total of 473 patients were randomized. A discharge pain questionnaire was completed by 226 of 234 patients (97 %) in the water exchange group versus 226 of 239 patients (95 %) in the CO2 group (P = 0.37). Moderate or severe pain was reported by 47 of 226 patients (21 %) in the water exchange group versus 60 of 226 patients (27 %) in the CO2 group (P = 0.15). No pain was reported by 100 of 226 patients (44 %) and 69 of 226 patients (31 %) in the water exchange and CO2 groups, respectively (P = 0.003). On-demand sedation was used in 15 patients (6 %) in each group (P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS There was no significant reduction in moderate or severe pain in a comparison of water exchange with CO2 insufflation. The secondary outcome of no pain was significantly more frequent in the water exchange group. Clinical trials registry number: NCT01633333.

Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended in several countries, but uptake rates are often low. Fear of pain and also time-consuming costly sedation are barriers for colonoscopy, and thus development of colonoscopy equipment that decreases patient discomfort is worthwhile. This randomized controlled trial investigated the performance of an ultrathin colonoscope in CRC screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS Consecutive participants in a colonoscopy screening trial were randomized to examination with an ultrathin prototype colonoscope or a standard colonoscope. The main outcome measure was pain during the examination. Participants rated pain (no, slight, moderate, severe) using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS From 187 enrolled participants (80 women [43 %]), 162 (87 %) responded to the questionnaire. The study groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Pain scores were significantly lower in the prototype instrument group compared with the standard group (78 % vs. 29 % of patients with no pain in prototype and standard groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06 - 0.23; P < 0.001). Cecal intubation rate was 98 % in the prototype group and 92 % in the standard group (P = 0.085). Sedation was used in 2 % and 7 % in the prototype and standard groups respectively (P = 0.12). Adenoma detection rate was 13 % in the prototype group vs. 24 % in the standard group (P = 0.052). CONCLUSION The new ultrathin Olympus colonoscope decreases patient pain during screening colonoscopy. This feature may improve uptake and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy. Further study is needed to evaluate the lower adenoma detection rate.

Upper Versus Lower Gastrointestinal Delivery for Transplantation of Fecal Microbiota in Recurrent or Refractory Clostridium difficile Infection: A Collaborative Analysis of Individual Patient Data From 14 Studies.

Goals: The aim of this study was to compare upper gastrointestinal (UGI) versus lower gastrointestinal (LGI) delivery routes of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for refractory or recurrent/relapsing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Background: FMT has been proven to be a safe and highly effective therapeutic option for CDI. Delivery, however, could be via the UGI or LGI routes, and it is unclear as to which route provides better clinical outcome. Study: A systematic search for studies that reported the use of FMT for CDI treatment was conducted. Individual patient data that included demographic (age and sex) and clinical (route of FMT delivery, CDI outcome after FMT, and follow-up time) information were obtained. Kaplan-Meier cumulative hazard curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess clinical failure after FMT by the route of delivery. Results: Data from 305 patients treated with FMT (208 via LGI route and 97 via UGI route) for CDI were analyzed. At 30 and 90 days, the risk of clinical failure was 5.6% and 17.9% in the UGI group compared with 4.9% and 8.5% in the LGI delivery route group, respectively. A time-varying analysis suggested a 3-fold increase in hazard of clinical failure for UGI delivery (hazard ratio, 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-8.93) in the period after 30 days. Conclusions: FMT delivered via the LGI seems to be the most effective route for the prevention of recurrence/relapse of CDI. A randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm whether FMT delivered via the LGI is indeed superior to that delivered via the UGI route.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging versus standard colonoscopy in a routine colonoscopy setting: A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND Knowing the position of the endoscope within the abdomen is important for performing a high-quality, painless colonoscopy. The recently introduced magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) system provides a continuous, real-time image of the endoscope during the entire procedure. OBJECTIVE To compare MEI versus standard colonoscopy with on-demand fluoroscopy on unsedated patients, as performed by experienced and inexperienced endoscopists. DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING Endoscopy outpatient clinic. PATIENTS This study involved 810 consecutive patients (391 randomized to standard group; 419 randomized to MEI) referred for colonoscopy. INTERVENTION MEI or standard approach (involving on-demand fluoroscopy) during colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Perceived patient pain and cecal intubation rate and time to cecum. RESULTS For inexperienced endoscopists, the cecal intubation rate was significantly higher in the MEI group (77.8%) compared with the standard group (56.0%), P = .02 but not for experienced endoscopists (94.0% for MEI and 96.0% for standard group, P = .87). Inexperienced endoscopists had less need for assistance from a senior colleague when they used MEI (18.5%) compared with the standard technique (40.0%), P = .02. Mean (± standard deviation) time to reach the cecum was 14.0 ± 12.2 minutes in the MEI group and 15.3 ± 14.2 minutes in the standard group, P = .67. LIMITATIONS Single center, unblinded study. CONCLUSION Inexperienced endoscopists improved their colonoscopy performance when they used MEI, compared with the standard technique, but experienced endoscopists did not. The MEI may be advantageous to use for colonoscopy centers educating endoscopists. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00519129.).

New polyps, old tricks: controversy about removing benign bowel lesions.

Colorectal cancer screening programmes have increased the number of benign lesions being detected. Geir Hoff and colleagues argue that we need more evidence about their malignant potential to be sure that the risks of following current recommendations for removal do not outweigh the benefits of screening

Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality in the Western world. Advances in surgical and medical management have led to improved outcomes; however, the prognosis of CRC is often poor when detected at a symptomatic stage. Most cases of CRC develop over years from removable well-defined precursor lesions, and asymptomatic, curable disease may be detected by convenient noninvasive tests. These features make CRC a suitable candidate for screening, and several options are available. This article outlines the evidence for established CRC screening tests along with a discussion on newer tests and ongoing research.