Barriers against split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Although split regimen is associated with higher adenoma detection and is recommended for elective colonoscopy, its adoption remains suboptimal. The identification of patient-related barriers may improve its implementation. Our aim was to assess patients' attitude towards split regimen and patient-related factors associated with its uptake. DESIGN: In a multicentre, prospective study, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy from 8:00 to 14:00 were given written instructions for 4 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation, offering the choice between split-dose and day-before regimens and emphasising the superiority of split regimen on colonoscopy outcomes. Uptake of split regimen and association with patient-related factors were explored by a 20-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1447 patients (mean age 59.2±13.5 years, men 54.3%), 61.7% and 38.3% chose a split-dose and day-before regimens, respectively. A linear correlation was observed between time of colonoscopy appointments and split-dose uptake, from 27.3% in 8:00 patients to 96% in 14:00 patients (p<0.001, χ2 for linear trend). At multivariate analysis, colonoscopy appointment before 10:00 (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18), travel time to endoscopy service >1 h (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.79), low education level (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) and female gender (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95) were inversely correlated with the uptake of split-dose. Overall, the risk of travel interruption and faecal incontinence was slightly increased in split regimen patients (3.0% vs 1.4% and 1.5% vs 0.9%, respectively; p=NS). Split regimen was an independent predictor of adequate colon cleansing (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.40 to 4.63) and polyp detection (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92). CONCLUSION: Patient attitude towards split regimen is suboptimal, especially for early morning examinations. Interventions to improve patient compliance (ie, policies to reorganise colonoscopy timetable, educational initiatives for patient and healthcare providers) should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02287051; pre-result.

Diagnostic value of endoscopic markers for celiac disease in adults: a multicentre prospective Italian study.

AIM: Some endoscopic features of duodenal mucosa are marker of mucosal injury, the most common cause being celiac disease (CD). The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the diagnostic value of the endoscopic markers for the diagnosis of CD in the adult population undergoing routine upper endoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study conducted at 37 Italian endoscopic centers. A total of 509 consecutive patients submitted to routine upper endoscopy who presented one or more of following endoscopic markers were included: 1) mucosal mosaic pattern in the bulb and/or descending duodenum (DD); 2) nodularity in the bulb and/or DD; 3) scalloping of Kerkring's folds; 4) reduction in the number or absence of folds in the DD. 4 biopsies samples were taken from descending duodenum. In patients with histological findings consistent with CD, according to Oberhuber classification, sierologic test (EMA, tTGA) were performed for confirm the diagnosis. RESULTS: At endoscopy, 249 patients showed an isolated marker; 260 subjects showed a coexistence of more than one marker; 369 patients (72.5%) presented mucosal lesions at histological examination and in 347 of these patients the diagnosis of CD was confirmed by serologic markers (94.0%). For 10 patients the diagnosis remained uncertain because of negative sierology and exclusion of other other cause of mucosal lesions. The diagnosis of CD was made in 61.3% patients who showed the mosaic pattern, in 65.7% of patients with nodular mucosa, in 64.4% of patients with scalloping of folds, in 40.2% of patients with reduction of folds, and in 61.5% of patients with loss of folds and in 83.6% of patients who showed the coexistence of more than one marker. The endoscopic markers overall had a PPV of 68% for the diagnosis of CD; the markers that singularly have demonstrated a higher correlation with CD are: mosaic mucosa of DD (PPV 65.0%), nodular mucosa of the bulb and DD (PPV 75.5%), and scalloping of folds (PPV 64.4%). CONCLUSION: The study confirms the important role of endoscopy in the diagnostic process of CD not only for the bioptic sampling in patients with clinical suspicion of CD, but especially for the opportunity to evaluate alterations of the duodenal mucosa suggestive of CD in the general population and, consequently, to identify those patients who should undergo a duodenal biopsy.

Pretreatment antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori infection: results of three randomized controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Although combinations of antibiotics and antisecretory drugs are useful for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, treatment failure is common. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation between pretreatment antibiotic resistance and outcome by using six different treatment regimens for H. pylori infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred sixty-nine consecutive H. pylori-infected patients with dyspeptic symptoms were enrolled in three consecutive randomized, controlled, single-center clinical trials: trial A, 128 patients; trial B, 125 patients; trial C, 116 patients. Treatments consisted of (A) a 15-day course of dual therapy (omeprazole, 20 mg bid, and amoxicillin, 1 gm bid, or clarithromycin, 500 mg tid) (OA vs OC); (B) a 7-day triple therapy of omeprazole, 20 mg bid, plus metronidazole, 500 mg bid, and amoxicillin, 1,000 mg bid, or clarithromycin, 500 mg tid (OMA vs OMC); or (C) omeprazole, 20 mg bid, plus metronidazole, 500 mg bid, plus tetracycline, 500 mg qid, or doxycycline, 100 mg tid (OMT vs OMD). Diagnostic endoscopy was made in all patients before and 5 to 6 weeks after therapy. Six biopsies were taken from each patient for histology, rapid urease test, and H. pylori culture; antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using the E-test method. RESULTS: Overall cure rates were poor for both dual therapies OA and OC (38% and 37%, respectively) and for triple therapies OMA, OMC, and OMD (57%, 55%, and 58%, respectively). The OMT combination was successful in 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.4%-97%). Metronidazole resistance was present in 29.7% (95% CI, 24%-35%), amoxicillin resistance was present in 26% (95% CI, 21%-32%), clarithromycin resistance was present in 23.1% (95% CI, 18%-29%), tetracycline resistance was present in 14% (95% CI, 10%-20%), and doxycycline resistance was present in 33.3% (95% CI, 21%-47%). Antibiotic resistance markedly reduced the cure rates and accounted for most of the poor results with the triple therapies: 89% versus 23%; 77% versus 26%; 100% versus 60%; and 67% versus 23% for OMC, OMA, OMT, and OMD, respectively. OMT appeared to be the best because of the high success rate with metronidazole-resistant H. pylori (71%) and in low-level tetracycline resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment antibiotic-resistant H. pylori can, in part, explain the low cure rate of the infection and the variability in outcome in reported trials.