Background Norway and Sweden have similar populations and health care systems, but different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed educational institutions, and banned sports and cultural activities; Sweden kept most institutions and training facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples’ attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and perceived impact of the pandemic and implemented control measures on life in Norway and Sweden. Methods Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method, in Norway and Sweden from mid-March to mid-April, 2020. The survey contained questions about perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries. Results 3508 individuals participated in the survey (Norway 3000; Sweden 508). 79% were women, the majority were 30–49 years (Norway 60%; Sweden 47%), and about 45% of the participants in both countries had more than 4 years of higher education. Participants had high trust in the health services, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (High trust in Norway 17%; Sweden 37%). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (Norway 66%; Sweden 18%), that countries with open schools were irresponsible (Norway 65%; Sweden 23%), and that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (Norway 71%; Sweden 56%). Both countries had a high compliance with infection preventive measures (> 98%). Many lived a more sedentary life (Norway 69%; Sweden 50%) and ate more (Norway 44%; Sweden 33%) during the pandemic. Conclusion Sweden had more trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries despite the differences in infection control measures.

Background Patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are at increased risk of biliary disease necessitating endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most widely used approaches to perform ERCP after RYGB are laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) and balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (BEA-ERCP). There are few studies comparing these procedures. We aimed to compare the performance, benefits, and harms of LA-ERCP and BEA-ERCP in RYGB patients. Methods We identified all RYGB patients who underwent ERCP at two tertiary care endoscopy centers in Oslo, Norway between May 2013 and December 2017. One center performed BEA-ERCP, the other LA-ERCP. Procedure success was defined as fulfillment of the therapeutic or diagnostic aim, according to the procedure description. Adverse events were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo grading system. Results During the study period, 40 BEA-ERCP and 39 LA-ERCP procedures were performed in 68 patients. Procedure success rate was 72.5 % for BEA-ERCP and 87.2 % for LA-ERCP (P = 0.14). Adverse events occurred in 18 % of BEA-ERCP and 28 % of LA-ERCP (P = 0.23). Serious adverse events (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3b) occurred in 2.5 % of BEA-ERCP and 7.7 % of LA-ERCP procedures (P = 0.36). Concomitant cholecystectomy was performed in 25 of the 39 LA-ERCP procedures. The median procedure times for LA-ERCP performed with and without concomitant cholecystectomy were 201 minutes and 140 minutes, respectively, and for BEA-ERCP was 125 minutes. Conclusions In experienced hands, both LA-ERCP and BEA-ERCP have high success rates after RYGB. The choice of approach should be individualized according to patient characteristics and available physician competence.

No abstract

Background There is continued uncertainty regarding the risks of hepato‐pancreato‐biliary cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with or without concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Objective To give updated estimates on risk of hepato‐pancreato‐biliary cancers in patients with IBD, including pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gall bladder cancer, and intra – and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Methods In a population‐based cohort study, we included all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 to 2016. The cohort comprised of 141,960 patients, identified through hospital databases and the National Patient Register. Participants were followed through linkage to national cancer, cause of death, and population registries. We calculated absolute risk and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of hepato‐pancreato‐biliary cancers by PSC and other clinical characteristics. Results Of the 141,960 IBD patients, 3.2% were diagnosed with PSC. During a median follow‐up of 10.0 years, we identified 443 biliary tract cancers (SIR 5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8–5.7), 161 hepatocellular carcinomas (SIR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0–2.7) and 282 pancreatic cancers (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.5). The relative risks were considerably higher in PSC‐IBD patients, with SIR of 140 (95% CI 123–159) for biliary tract, 38.6 (95% CI 29.2–50.0) for hepatocellular, and 9.0 (95% CI 6.3–12.6) for pancreatic cancer. The SIRs were still slightly increased in non‐PSC‐IBD patients, compared to the general population. For biliary tract cancer, the cumulative probability at 25 years was 15.6% in PSC‐IBD patients, and 0.4% in non‐PSC‐IBD patients. Conclusions The dramatically increased risks of hepato‐pancreato‐biliary cancers in PSC‐IBD patients support periodic surveillance for these malignancies. While much lower, the excess relative risks in non‐PSC‐IBD patients were not trivial compared to non‐IBD related risk factors.