There is a lack of consensus in management strategies for patients after IC. Implementation of a referral program has had minimal impact on provider recommendations.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a known complication of immunosuppressive therapy. While patients who are undergoing treatment with anti-CD20 agents or stem cell transplantation are commonly screened for chronic HBV infection prior to treatment, there are no consensus guidelines regarding HBV screening for patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors. We present a rare case of fulminant liver failure due to HBV reactivation in a patient receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Our case highlights the importance of developing definitive guidelines regarding HBV screening in patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors and raises the question of the need for universal screening.

Background/AimsLow-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are better tolerated by patients than high-volume preparations and may achieve similar preparation quality. However, there is little data comparing their effects on a recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy (because of a suboptimal preparation), procedure times, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR).MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of outpatient colonoscopies performed during a one-year period at a single academic medical center in which low-volume MoviPrep® (n = 1841) or high-volume Colyte® (n = 1337) was used. All preparations were split-dosed. Appropriate covariates were included in regression models assessing suboptimal preparation quality (fair, poor, or inadequate), procedure times, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy, ADR, and AADR.ResultsMoviPrep® was associated with an increase in having a suboptimal bowel preparation (OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.06–1.76), but it was not associated with differences in insertion (p = 0.43), withdrawal (p = 0.22), or total procedure times (p = 0.10). The adjusted percentage with a suboptimal preparation was 11.7% for patients using MoviPrep® and 8.8% for patients using Colyte®. MoviPrep® was not associated with a significant difference in overall ADR (OR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.78–1.11), AADR (OR 1.18; 95% CI: 0.87–1.62), or recommendation for early repeat colonoscopy (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 0.72–1.88).ConclusionsMoviPrep® was associated with a small absolute increase in having a suboptimal preparation, but did not affect recommendations for an early repeat colonoscopy, procedure times, or adenoma detection rates. Mechanisms to reduce financial barriers limiting low-volume preparations should be considered because of their favorable tolerability profile.

Background/AimsColonoscopy is performed on patients across a broad spectrum of demographic characteristics. These characteristics may aggregate by patient insurance provider and influence bowel preparation quality and the prevalence of adenomas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of insurance status and suboptimal bowel preparation, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal bowel preparation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced ADR (AADR).MethodsThis is a cohort study of outpatient colonoscopies (n = 3113) at a single academic medical center. Patient insurance status was categorized into five groups: 1) Medicare < 65y; 2) Medicare ≥ 65y; 3) Tricare/VA; 4) Medicaid/Colorado Indigent Care Program (CICP); and 5) commercial insurance. We used multivariable logistic or linear regression modeling to estimate the risks for the association between patient insurance and suboptimal bowel preparation, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal bowel preparation, ADR, and AADR. Models were adjusted for appropriate covariates.ResultsMedicare patients < 65y (OR 4.91; 95% CI: 3.25–7.43) and Medicaid/CICP patients (OR 4.23; 95% CI: 2.65–7.65) were more likely to have a suboptimal preparation compared to commercial insurance patients. Medicare patients < 65y (OR 5.58; 95% CI: 2.85–10.92) and Medicaid/CICP patients (OR 3.64; CI: 1.60–8.28) were more likely to receive a recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy compared to commercial insurance patients. Medicare patients < 65y had a significantly higher adjusted ADR (OR 1.50; 95% CI: 1.03–2.18) and adjusted AADR (OR 1.99; 95% CI: 1.15–3.44) compared to commercial insurance patients.ConclusionsUnderstanding the reasons for the higher rate of a suboptimal bowel preparation in Medicare < 65y and Medicaid/CICP patients and reducing this rate is critical to improving colonoscopy outcomes and reducing healthcare costs in these populations.

No abstract