1.
Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial.
Randel, KR, Schult, AL, Botteri, E, Hoff, G, Bretthauer, M, Ursin, G, Natvig, E, Berstad, P, Jørgensen, A, Sandvei, PK, et al
Gastroenterology. 2021;(4):1085-1096.e5
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. METHODS Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 μg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.
2.
Systematic review: probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms - an updated evidence-based international consensus.
Hungin, APS, Mitchell, CR, Whorwell, P, Mulligan, C, Cole, O, Agréus, L, Fracasso, P, Lionis, C, Mendive, J, Philippart de Foy, JM, et al
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2018;47(8):1054-1070
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
The role of the gut microbiota in health and disease is far reaching and there is a growing body of evidence on the therapeutic potential of probiotics in gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Patients with GI disease present with a variety of symptoms and current evidence suggests probiotics may play a role in ameliorating these adverse symptoms. The purpose of this review is to update the previous systematic review and incorporate new findings on the role of probiotics in adult patients presenting with a variety of GI symptoms. Based on the updated evidence, this study confirms the finding that specific probiotics are beneficial for certain lower GI problems. According to this review, the author deems this study useful for clinicians when recommending probiotics to patients.
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2013, a systematic review and Delphi consensus reported that specific probiotics can benefit adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and other gastrointestinal (GI) problems. AIM: To update the consensus with new evidence. METHODS A systematic review identified randomised, placebo-controlled trials published between January 2012 and June 2017. Evidence was graded, previously developed statements were reassessed by an 8-expert panel, and agreement was reached via Delphi consensus. RESULTS A total of 70 studies were included (IBS, 34; diarrhoea associated with antibiotics, 13; diarrhoea associated with Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, 7; other conditions, 16). Of 15 studies that examined global IBS symptoms as a primary endpoint, 8 reported significant benefits of probiotics vs placebo. Consensus statements with 100% agreement and "high" evidence level indicated that specific probiotics help reduce overall symptom burden and abdominal pain in some patients with IBS and duration/intensity of diarrhoea in patients prescribed antibiotics or H. pylori eradication therapy, and have favourable safety. Statements with 70%-100% agreement and "moderate" evidence indicated that, in some patients with IBS, specific probiotics help reduce bloating/distension and improve bowel movement frequency/consistency. CONCLUSIONS This updated review indicates that specific probiotics are beneficial in certain lower GI problems, although many of the new publications did not report benefits of probiotics, possibly due to inclusion of new, less efficacious preparations. Specific probiotics can relieve lower GI symptoms in IBS, prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotics and H. pylori eradication therapy, and show favourable safety. This study will help clinicians recommend/prescribe probiotics for specific symptoms.
3.
Phenotyping of subjects for large scale studies on patients with IBS.
Boeckxstaens, GE, Drug, V, Dumitrascu, D, Farmer, AD, Hammer, J, Hausken, T, Niesler, B, Pohl, D, Pojskic, L, Polster, A, et al
Neurogastroenterology and motility. 2016;(8):1134-47
Abstract
BACKGROUND Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex condition with multiple factors contributing to its aetiology and pathophysiology. Aetiologically these include genetics, life-time events and environment, and physiologically, changes in motility, central processing, visceral sensitivity, immunity, epithelial permeability and gastrointestinal microflora. Such complexity means there is currently no specific reliable biomarker for IBS, and thus IBS continues to be diagnosed and classified according to symptom based criteria, the Rome Criteria. Carefully phenotyping and characterisation of a 'large' pool of IBS patients across Europe and even the world however, might help identify sub-populations with accuracy and consistency. This will not only aid future research but improve tailoring of treatment and health care of IBS patients. PURPOSE The aim of this position paper is to discuss the requirements necessary to standardize the process of selecting and phenotyping IBS patients and how to organise the collection and storage of patient information/samples in such a large multi-centre pan European/global study. We include information on general demographics, gastrointestinal symptom assessment, psychological factors, quality of life, physiological evaluation, genetic/epigenetic and microbiota analysis, biopsy/blood sampling, together with discussion on the organisational, ethical and language issues associated with implementing such a study. The proposed approach and documents selected to be used in such a study was the result of a thoughtful and thorough four-year dialogue amongst experts associated with the European COST action BM1106 GENIEUR (www.GENIEUR.eu).