Search

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) across cancer programs has created the need for standardized monitoring and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Delayed recognition without appropriate treatment can have serious and life-threatening consequences. The management of irAEs presents a unique set of challenges that must be addressed at a multidisciplinary level. Although various national and international guidelines and working groups provide high-level recommendations for the management of irAEs, practical guidance is lacking. Furthermore, timely collaboration between specialists requires institutional protocols that enable the early recognition, assessment, and treatment of irAEs. Such protocols should be developed by institution specialists and include algorithms for all healthcare providers involved in the care of patients treated with ICIs. At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, practical step-by-step multidisciplinary treatment approaches with recommendations for the management of irAEs were developed in collaboration with experts across Canada. Here, we provide an in-depth description of the approaches, outlining baseline investigations prior to the initiation of ICIs, as well as the monitoring and management of irAEs based on symptoms, severity, and involved organ systems. We encourage other centres to adapt and modify our approaches according to their specific needs and requirements.

Background/Aim: There are limited data evaluating the impact of inpatient video capsule endoscopy (VCE) on the need for therapeutic interventions in hospitalized patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). The objective of this study was to determine the impact of inpatient VCE on the need for therapeutic interventions and rehospitalization for recurrent bleeding. Patients and Methods: Hospitalized patients who underwent VCE for OGIB indication were retrospectively included. Clinical data were collected including therapeutic interventions performed after VCE. Specific therapeutic interventions were defined as the medical, endoscopic, or surgical treatment directly targeting the cause of OGIB. Patients were followed up to determine the rate of rehospitalization. Results: A total of 48 inpatient VCE were identified, of which 43 VCE were performed for OGIB indication and were included for analysis. The completion rate and the diagnostic yield were 78.5% and 55.8%, respectively. Subsequent specific therapeutic interventions were performed in 65.2% and 5.8% of patients with positive and negative VCE, respectively (P < 0.001). After a median follow up of 30 months (minimum 12, maximum 58), rehospitalization for recurrent bleeding occurred in 30.4% and 17% of patients with positive and negative VCE, respectively. Patients with angiodysplasia on VCE were significantly more likely to be readmitted (P = 0.02). Throughout the course of the follow-up, only 2 (11.7%) patients with negative VCE underwent specific therapeutic interventions. Conclusion: Inpatient VCE is an effective tool to identify patients who need specific therapeutic interventions. Patients with negative VCE are unlikely to be readmitted or require specific therapeutic interventions in the index admission.

Background. The inpatient status is a well-known risk factor for incomplete video capsule endoscopy (VCE) examinations due to prolonged transit time. We aimed to evaluate the effect of prucalopride on small bowel transit time for hospitalized patients undergoing VCE. Methods. We included all hospitalized patients who underwent VCE at a tertiary academic center from October 2011 through September 2016. A single 2 mg dose of prucalopride was given exclusively for all patients who underwent VCE between March 2014 and December 2015. VCE studies were excluded if the capsule was retained or endoscopically placed, if other prokinetic agents were given, in cases with technical failure, or if patients had prior gastric or small bowel resection. Results. 442 VCE were identified, of which 68 were performed in hospitalized patients. 54 inpatients were included, of which 29 consecutive patients received prucalopride. The prucalopride group had a significantly shorter small bowel transit time compared to the control group (92 versus 275.5, p

Aim: To compare low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate and clear liquid diet alone as bowel preparation prior to small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE)., Methods: We retrospectively collected all CE studies done from December 2011 to July 2013 at a single institution. CE studies were reviewed only if low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate or clear liquid diet alone used as the bowel preparation. The studies were then reviewed by the CE readers who were blinded to the preparation type. Cleanliness and bubble burden were graded independently within the proximal, middle and distal small bowel using a four-point scale according to the percentage of small bowel mucosa free of debris/bubbles: grade 1 = over 90%, grade 2 = between 90%-75%, grade 3 = between 50%-75%, grade 4 = less than 50%. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. ANOVA and Fishers exact test were used where appropriate. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant., Results: A of total of 123 CE studies were reviewed. Twenty-six studies were excluded from analysis because of incomplete small bowel examination. In the remaining studies, 39 patients took low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, 31 took sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate and 27 took a clear liquid diet alone after lunch on the day before CE, followed by overnight fasting in all groups. There was no significant difference in small bowel cleanliness (1.98 ± 0.09 vs 1.84 ± 0.08 vs 1.76 ± 0.08) or small bowel transit time (213 ± 13 vs 248 ± 14 ± 225 ± 19 min) for clear liquid diet alone, MoviPrep and Pico-Salax respectively. The bubble burden in the mid small bowel was significantly higher in the MoviPrep group (1.6 ± 0.1 vs 1.9 ± 0.1 vs 1.6 ± 0.1, P < 0.05). However this did not result in a significant difference in diagnosis of pathology., Conclusion: There was no significant difference in small bowel cleanliness or diagnostic yield of small bowel CE between the three preparations regimens used in this study.