Clinical question: Do antibiotics change clinical outcomes for patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis?
Bottom line: For nonseptic immunocompetent patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, antibiotics do not alter early complication or recurrence rates.
This JAMA Patient Page describes Lynch syndrome, its risk factors and diagnosis, and its association with colorectal cancer and other specific cancers.
Importance: Approximately 55 million people in the US and approximately 1.1 billion people worldwide are postmenopausal women. To inform clinical practice about the health effects of menopausal hormone therapy, calcium plus vitamin D supplementation, and a low-fat dietary pattern, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) enrolled 161 808 postmenopausal US women (N = 68 132 in the clinical trials) aged 50 to 79 years at baseline from 1993 to 1998, and followed them up for up to 20 years.
Observations: The WHI clinical trial results do not support hormone therapy with oral conjugated equine estrogens plus medroxyprogesterone acetate for postmenopausal women or conjugated equine estrogens alone for those with prior hysterectomy to prevent cardiovascular disease, dementia, or other chronic diseases. However, hormone therapy is effective for treating moderate to severe vasomotor and other menopausal symptoms. These benefits of hormone therapy in early menopause, combined with lower rates of adverse effects of hormone therapy in early compared with later menopause, support initiation of hormone therapy before age 60 years for women without contraindications to hormone therapy who have bothersome menopausal symptoms. The WHI results do not support routinely recommending calcium plus vitamin D supplementation for fracture prevention in all postmenopausal women. However, calcium and vitamin D are appropriate for women who do not meet national guidelines for recommended intakes of these nutrients through diet. A low-fat dietary pattern with increased fruit, vegetable, and grain consumption did not prevent the primary outcomes of breast or colorectal cancer but was associated with lower rates of the secondary outcome of breast cancer mortality during long-term follow-up.
Conclusions and relevance: For postmenopausal women, the WHI randomized clinical trials do not support menopausal hormone therapy to prevent cardiovascular disease or other chronic diseases. Menopausal hormone therapy is appropriate to treat bothersome vasomotor symptoms among women in early menopause, without contraindications, who are interested in taking hormone therapy. The WHI evidence does not support routine supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D for menopausal women to prevent fractures or a low-fat diet with increased fruits, vegetables, and grains to prevent breast or colorectal cancer. A potential role of a low-fat dietary pattern in reducing breast cancer mortality, a secondary outcome, warrants further study.
Abstract
Importance: Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.
Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.
Population: Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).
Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.
Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).
Abstract
Introduction: Patient-physician communication about colorectal cancer screening can affect screening use, but discussions often lack information that patients need for informed decision making and seldom address personal preferences or barriers. To address this gap, a series of patient focus groups was conducted to guide the development of an online, interactive decision support program. This article presents findings on patient information needs and barriers to colorectal cancer screening after receiving a screening recommendation from a physician, and their perspectives on using electronic patient portals as platforms for health-related decision support.
Methods: Primary care patients with recent colonoscopy or stool testing orders were identified via the centralized data repository of a large Midwestern health system. Seven gender-stratified focus groups (N=45 participants) were convened between April and July 2016. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed for commonly expressed themes beginning in August 2016.
Results: Findings reveal a consistent need for simple and clear information on colorectal cancer screening. Participants desired step-by-step explanations of the colonoscopy procedure and information about bowel preparation options/alternatives. The desired level of additional information varied: some patients wanted to know about and act on test options, whereas others preferred following their physician-recommended testing path. Fears and concerns were prevalent, particularly about colonoscopy, and patients reported challenges getting these concerns and their informational needs addressed. Finally, they expressed consistent support for using the patient portal to gather additional information from their physician.
Conclusions: Patient portals may offer an opportunity to build sustainable programs for decision support and assistance that are integrated with clinic workflows and processes.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02798224.
Abstract
Importance: There are insufficient data describing the incidence and risk factors of postcolonoscopy complications in older individuals.
Objective: To assess the association between older age (≥75 years) and the risk of postcolonoscopy complications.
Design, setting, and participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included adults (≥50 years) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017, identified from Ontario administrative databases. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. The study population was subdivided into a colorectal cancer screening-eligible cohort (patients aged 50-74 years) and an older cohort (patients aged ≥75 years). The statistical analysis was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019.
Exposures: Older age (≥75 years).
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy complications, defined as the composite of hospitalization or emergency department visits in the 30-day period after the outpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Independent variables associated with postcolonoscopy complications were also assessed.
Results: The study sample included 38 069 patients; the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10.1) years, there were 19 037 women (50.0%), and 27 831 patients (73.1%) underwent a first colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of complications was 3.4% (1310 patients) in the overall population, and it was higher in individuals aged 75 years or older (515 of 7627 patients [6.8%]) than in screening-eligible cohort (795 of 30 443 patients [2.6%]) (P < .001). Independent risk factors for postcolonoscopy complications were age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), and obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). The number of previous colonoscopies was associated with a lower risk of complications (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). The incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer was higher in the older cohort than the screening-eligible cohort (119 patients [1.6%] vs 144 patients [0.5%]; P < .001). All-cause mortality rates were 0.1% overall (39 patients) and 0.1% (19 patients) for individuals aged 50 to 74 years and 0.2% (20 patients) for those aged 75 years and older (P < .001).
Conclusions and relevance: In this population-based cohort study of individuals living in southern Ontario, age of 75 years and older was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postprocedure complications after outpatient colonoscopy. These findings suggest that the decision to perform a colonoscopy should be carefully considered in patients older than 75 years, especially in the presence of comorbidities. Further studies are needed to better understand the benefits of invasive procedures as opposed to less invasive approaches for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance among older patients.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer and second leading cause of mortality from cancer in the United States. As the population ages, decisions regarding the initiation and cessation of screening and surveillance for CRC are of increasing importance. In elderly patients, the risks of CRC and the presenting signs and symptoms are similar to those in younger patients. Screening and ongoing surveillance should be considered in patients who have a life expectancy of 10 years or more. Life expectancy estimates can be calculated using online calculators. If screening is deemed appropriate, the choice of which test to use first is unclear. Currently, there are a number of modalities available to screen for CRC, including both invasive modalities (eg, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, capsule colonoscopy, and computed tomographic colonography) and noninvasive modalities (fecal immunochemical test, stool DNA testing, and blood testing). Colonoscopy and other invasive testing options are considered safe, but the risks of complications of the bowel preparation, the procedure, and sedation medications are all increased in older patients. In contrast, noninvasive testing provides a safe initial test; however, it is important to consider the increased false-positive rates in the elderly, and a positive test result will usually necessitate colonoscopy to establish the diagnosis. Ongoing screening and surveillance should be a shared decision-making process with the patient based on multiple factors including the patient’s morbidity and mortality risk from CRC and his or her underlying comorbidities, the patient’s functional status, and the patient’s preferences for screening. Ultimately, the decision to initiate or discontinue screening for CRC in older patients should be done based on a case-by-case individualized discussion.
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this guidance statement is to guide clinicians on colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults.
METHODS:
This guidance statement is derived from a critical appraisal of guidelines on screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults and the evidence presented in these guidelines. National guidelines published in English between 1 June 2014 and 28 May 2018 in the National Guideline Clearinghouse or Guidelines International Network library were included. The authors also included 3 guidelines commonly used in clinical practice. Web sites were searched for guideline updates in December 2018. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of guidelines.
TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION:
The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults at average risk for colorectal cancer.
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1:
Clinicians should screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years.
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2:
Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient on the basis of a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences. Suggested screening tests and intervals are fecal immunochemical testing or high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus fecal immunochemical testing every 2 years.
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3:
Clinicians should discontinue screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults older than 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.
PURPOSE:
We compared the transformation experience of 2 family medicine practices that implemented the Primary Care Redesign (PCR) team-based model to improve access, quality, and experience without increasing cost. The University of Colorado's A.F. Williams Family Medicine clinic (pilot practice) implemented the model in February 2015, and a smaller, community-based practice (wave 2 practice) did so 2 years later, in February 2017.
METHODS:
The PCR model increased the ratio of medical assistants to clinicians from about 1:2 to 2.5:1 while expanding the role of the medical assistants, through enhanced rooming procedures, in-room support (eg, scribing), postclinician wrap-up, and in-basket assistance. We assessed access, clinical quality metrics, staffing costs, and clinician and staff experience and burnout for at least 7 months before and 42 months after the intervention.
RESULTS:
In the pilot practice, compared with preimplementation, there were improvements in total appointments and rates of hypertension control, colorectal cancer screening, and most diabetic quality metrics. In the wave 2 practice, total appointments increased slightly when clinicians were added pre-PCR and then increased substantially after implementation; initially variable hypertension control improved rapidly after implementation. The wave 2 practice's colorectal cancer screening improved gradually, then accelerated postimplementation, while diabetic metrics initially remained stable or declined, then improved postimplementation. New patient appointments began to increase for both practices in late 2015, but grew faster in the pilot practice under PCR. Over time, all experiential domains improved for clinicians; most remained stable for staff. Clinician burnout was reduced by at least one-half in both practices except during low staffing periods, which also adversely affected staff. After a ramp-up period, the number of staff hours per visit remained stable.
CONCLUSIONS:
The PCR model is associated with simultaneous improvements in quality, access, and clinician experience, as well as reductions in burnout, while maintaining staffing costs.
