Search

Background: The Veterans Affairs (VHA) is working to establish a population-based colorectal cancer screening program for average-risk patients using mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). However, low response rates to mailed FIT may hinder success. Key features of mailed FIT programs, including the use of reminders, differ among various national programs, with limited evidence among veterans. Objective: We sought to test whether using reminders, either via telephone call or text message, was effective in improving mailed FIT response rates. Design: We conducted a prospective, randomized quality improvement trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05012007). Veterans who had not returned a FIT within 2 weeks of receiving the kit were randomized to one of three groups: (1) control (no reminder); (2) an automated telephone call reminder; or (3) an automated text message reminder. Participants: A total of 2658 veterans enrolled at VA Puget Sound Health Care System who were aged 45–75 and had an average risk of colorectal cancer. Interventions: A single automated telephone call or text message reminder prompting veterans to return the FIT kit. Main Measures: Our primary outcome was FIT return at 90 days and our secondary outcome was FIT return at 180 days. Key Results: Participant average age was 62 years, 88% were men, and 66% White. At 90 days, both the phone and text reminder interventions had higher FIT return rates compared to control (intention-to-treat results (ITT): control 28%, phone 39%, text 38%; p<0.001). At 180 days, FIT kit return remained higher in the reminder interventions (ITT: control 32%, phone 42%, text 40%; p<0.001). Conclusions: Automated reminders increased colorectal cancer screening completion among average-risk veterans. An automated phone call or text message was equally effective. VHA facilities seeking to implement a mailed FIT program should consider using phone or text reminders, depending on available resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs are increasingly utilized for population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Advanced notifications (primers) are one behavioral designed feature of many mailed FIT programs, but few have tested this feature among Veterans. Objective: To determine if an advanced notification, a primer postcard, increases completion of FIT among Veterans. Design: This is a prospective, randomized quality improvement trial to evaluate a postcard primer prior to a mailed FIT versus mailed FIT alone. Participants: A total of 2404 Veterans enrolled for care at a large VA site that were due for average-risk CRC screening. Intervention: A written postcard sent 2 weeks in advance of a mailed FIT kit that contained information on CRC screening and completing a FIT. Main Measures: Our primary outcome was FIT completion at 90 days, and our secondary outcome was FIT completion at 180 days. Key Results: Overall, unadjusted mailed FIT return rates were similar among control vs. primer arms at 90 days (27% vs. 29%, p = 0.11). Our adjusted analysis found a primer postcard did not increase FIT completion compared to mailed FIT alone (OR 1.14 (0.94, 1.37)). Conclusions: Though primers are often a standard part of mailed FIT programs, we did not find an increase in FIT completion with mailed postcard primers among Veterans. Given the overall low mailed FIT return rates, testing different ways to improve return rates is essential to improving CRC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The magnitude of risk of serious infections due to available medical therapies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the existing IBD literature to estimate the risk of serious infection in adult IBD patients associated with available medical therapies.Methods: Studies were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Randomized controlled trials comparing IBD medical therapies with no restrictions on language, country of origin, or publication date were included. A network meta-analysis was used to pool direct between treatment comparisons with indirect trial evidence while preserving randomization.Results: Thirty-nine articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; one study was excluded from the analysis due to disconnectedness. We found no evidence of increased odds of serious infection in comparisons of the different treatment strategies against each other, including combination therapy with a biologic and immunomodulator compared to biologic monotherapy. Similar results were seen in the comparisons between the newer biologics (e.g. vedolizumab) and the anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.Conclusions: No treatment strategy was found to confer a higher risk of serious infection than another, although wide confidence intervals indicate that a clinically significant difference cannot be excluded. These findings provide a better understanding of the risk of serious infection from IBD pharmacotherapy in the adult population.Prospero Registration: The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42014013497 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]