It has been assumed that the symptoms measured in disease activity indices for ulcerative colitis reflect those symptoms that patients find useful in evaluating the severity of a disease flare. In this qualitative focus group study, we aimed to identify which symptoms are important to patients and to compare these symptoms with a comprehensive list of commonly measured symptoms to determine/evaluate whether the patient-reported important symptoms are represented in current disease activity indices for ulcerative colitis. Patients in this sample confirmed 15 symptoms but not 11 other symptoms found in common ulcerative colitis activity indices. Patients identified an additional 14 symptoms not included in commonly used ulcerative colitis activity indices, which they believed to be important in evaluating the onset or severity of an ulcerative colitis flare. Current indices capture only a portion of the clinical symptoms that are important to patients in an ulcerative colitis flare, and may neither accurately measure nor fully reflect patients’ experience of ulcerative colitis. These findings present an opportunity to develop better patient-centered measures of ulcerative colitis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials conducted by B. Joseph Elmunzer and colleagues reports that that flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer in average-risk patients, as compared to usual care or no screening.

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded varying estimates of the benefit of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to more precisely estimate the effect of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC by performing a meta-analysis of published RCTs.

Methods and Findings

Medline and Embase databases were searched for eligible articles published between 1966 and 28 May 2012. After screening 3,319 citations and 29 potentially relevant articles, two reviewers identified five RCTs evaluating the effect of FS screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC. The reviewers independently extracted relevant data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was assessed using criteria set out by the Evidence-Based Gastroenterology Steering Group. Random effects meta-analysis was performed.

The five RCTs meeting eligibility criteria were determined to be of high methodologic quality and enrolled 416,159 total subjects. Four European studies compared FS to no screening and one study from the United States compared FS to usual care. By intention to treat analysis, FS-based screening was associated with an 18% relative risk reduction in the incidence of CRC (0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, p<0.001, number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent one case of CRC = 361), a 33% reduction in the incidence of left-sided CRC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59–0.76, p<0.001, NNS = 332), and a 28% reduction in the mortality of CRC (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.65–0.80, p<0.001, NNS = 850). The efficacy estimate, the amount of benefit for those who actually adhered to the recommended treatment, suggested that FS screening reduced CRC incidence by 32% (p<0.001), and CRC-related mortality by 50% (p<0.001).

Limitations of this meta-analysis include heterogeneity in the design of the included trials, absence of studies from Africa, Asia, or South America, and lack of studies comparing FS with colonoscopy or stool-based testing.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrates that FS-based screening significantly reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in average-risk patients.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Editor's Summary

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Regular CRC screening has been shown to reduce the risk of dying from CRC by 16%, and CRC screening can identify early stage cancers in otherwise healthy people, which allows for early treatment and management of the disease. Screening for colorectal cancer is frequently performed using a flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is a thin, flexible tube with a tiny camera and light on the end, allowing a doctor to look at the inside wall of the bowel and remove any small growths or polyps. Although screening may detect early cancers, the life-saving and health benefits of screening are uncertain because the polyp may not necessarily progress. This could lead to anxiety and unnecessary interventions and treatments amongst those screened. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to determine all of the risks involved in cancer screenings, however the guidelines that recommend FS-based screening do not rely upon RCT data. Recently, the results of four large-scale RCTs evaluating FS screening for CRC have been published. The conflicting results with respect to the incidence and mortality of CRC in these studies have called into question the effectiveness of endoscopic screening.

Why Was This Study Done?

The results of RCTs measuring the risks and outcomes of CRC screening have shown varying estimates of the benefits of using FS screening. If better estimates of the risks and benefits of FS screening are developed, then the current CRC screening guidelines may be updated to reflect this new information. In this study, the authors show the results of a meta-analysis of published RCTs, which more precisely estimates the effects of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer.

What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

The researchers used the Medline and Embase databases to find relevant studies from 1966 to May 28, 2012. After screening 3,319 citations and 29 potentially relevant articles, five RCTs of high methodologic quality and 416,159 total subjects evaluating the effect of FS screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC were identified. The data were extracted and random effects meta-analysis was performed. The meta-analysis revealed that FS-based screening was associated with an 18% relative risk reduction in the incidence of CRC (0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, p<0.001, number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one case of CRC = 361), a 33% reduction in the incidence of left-sided CRC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59–0.76, p<0.001, NNS = 332), and a 28% reduction in the mortality of CRC (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65–0.80, p<0.001, NNS = 850). The amount of benefit for those who adhered to the recommended treatment suggested that FS screening reduced CRC incidence by 32% (p<0.001), and CRC-related mortality by 50% (p<0.001).

What Do These Findings Mean?

This meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the effect of FS on CRC incidence and mortality demonstrates that a FS-based strategy for screening is very effective in reducing the incidence and mortality of CRC in patients. The current recommendations for endoscopic screening are based on observational studies, which may not accurately reflect the effect of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC. Here, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of five recent RCTs to better estimate the true effect of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC. Thus, the results of this meta-analysis may affect health policy, and directly impact patients and clinicians.

Additional Information

Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352.

Cancer research UK provides comprehensive information about screening for colorectal cancers as does the UK National Screening Committee

PubMed Health has general information about colon cancer

The National Cancer Institute also has comprehensive resources on colorectal cancer and treatment

The Mayo Clinic provides an overview of all aspects of colon cancer

Background

Preliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, we assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were determined to be at high risk on the basis of validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdominal pain, an elevation in pancreatic enzymes to at least three times the upper limit of the normal range 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights.

Results

A total of 602 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (82%) had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%) in the indomethacin group and in 52 of 307 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (P = 0.005). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 13 patients (4.4%) in the indomethacin group and in 27 patients (8.8%) in the placebo group (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of the condition. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00820612.)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic enzyme supplementation is standard treatment for malabsorption due to chronic pancreatitis. The FDA recently required all manufacturers to submit New Drug Applications (NDAs) to continue to market these agents because published data demonstrated variation in formulation, bioavailability, and shelf-life while providing limited data about efficacy and safety.

AIM

To systematically review the design and results of randomized, parallel-design trials of pancreatic enzyme supplements in chronic pancreatitis patients with steatorrhea.

METHODS

A computer-assisted search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify relevant studies. Two authors performed duplicate data extraction on study design, improvement in coefficient of fat absorption (CFA), diarrhea, and adverse events using pre-specified forms. Agreement between investigators for data extraction was greater than 95%.

RESULTS

Of 619 articles found through literature searching, 20 potentially relevant articles were identified and 4 manuscripts met inclusion criteria. No studies performed head-to-head comparisons of different supplements. Enzyme supplementation is more likely to improve CFA compared to placebo, but fat malaborption remained abnormal. Important differences in patient population, study endpoint, study design, pancreatic enzyme dosage, and measurement of CFA were present across trials which precluded comparison of different agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Enzyme supplementation improves CFA compared to placebo but may not abolish steatorrhea.

Background

Ulcerative colitis disease activity is determined by measuring symptoms and signs. Our aim was to determine which symptom domains are frequent and responsive to change in the evaluation of disease activity, which are those defined by three criteria: 1) they occur frequently during flares; 2) they improve during effective therapy for ulcerative colitis; and 3) they resolve during remission.

Methods

Twenty-eight symptom domains, 16 from standard indices and 12 novel domains identified by ulcerative colitis patient focus groups, were evaluated. Sixty subjects with ulcerative colitis were surveyed, rating each symptom on the three criteria with a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Frequent and responsive symptoms were defined a priori as those whose median Visual Analogue Scale rating for all 3 criteria was significantly greater than 50.

Results

Thirteen of the 28 symptom domains were identified as both frequent in ulcerative colitis flares and responsive to changes in disease activity. Seven of these 13 symptom domains were novel symptoms derived from ulcerative colitis patient focus groups including stool mucus, tenesmus, fatigue, rapid postprandial bowel movements, and inability to differentiate liquid or gas from solid stool when rectal urgency occurs. Ten of the 16 symptom domains from standard indices were either infrequent or unresponsive to changes in disease activity.

Conclusion

Only some of the symptoms of ulcerative colitis that are important to patients are included in standard indices, and several symptoms currently measured are not frequent or responsive to change in ulcerative colitis patients. Development of survey measures of these symptom domains could significantly improve the assessment of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.