Search

Background: Studies on the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) in a daily clinical screening and surveillance colonoscopy population practice are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel CAD system in a screening and surveillance colonoscopy population., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, controlled trial was done in ten hospitals in Europe, the USA, and Israel by 31 endoscopists. Patients referred for non-immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening or surveillance colonoscopy were included. Patients were randomomly assigned to CAD-assisted colonoscopy or conventional colonoscopy; a subset was further randomly assigned to undergo tandem colonoscopy: CAD followed by conventional colonoscopy or conventional colonoscopy followed by CAD. Primary objectives included adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and adenoma per extraction (APE). Secondary objectives included adenoma miss rate (AMR) in the tandem colonoscopies. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640792., Findings: A total of 916 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 449 in the CAD group and 467 in the conventional colonoscopy group. APC was higher with CAD compared with conventional colonoscopy (0·70 vs 0·51, p=0·015; 314 adenomas per 449 colonoscopies vs 238 adenomas per 467 colonoscopies; poisson effect ratio 1·372 [95% CI 1·068-1·769]), while showing non-inferiority of APE compared with conventional colonoscopy (0·59 vs 0·66; p<0·001 for non-inferiority; 314 of 536 extractions vs 238 of 360 extractions). AMR in the 127 (61 with CAD first, 66 with conventional colonoscopy first) patients completing tandem colonoscopy was 19% (11 of 59 detected during the second pass) in the CAD first group and 36% (16 of 45 detected during the second pass) in the conventional colonoscopy first group (p=0·024)., Interpretation: CAD increased adenoma detection in non-iFOBT screening and surveillance colonoscopies and reduced adenoma miss rates compared with conventional colonoscopy, without an increase in the resection of non-adenomatous lesions., Funding: Magentiq Eye., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HN reports equipment from Magentiq Eye. AAB is a consultant for Boston Scientific Corp. SN is a consultant for Boston Scientific Corp, Olympus, and Neptune Medical. HJ reports consultancy fees from Magentiq Eye, and stock options from Magentiq Eye from activities before the clinical trial. PDS reports research support from Pentax, The eNose company, Lucid Diagnostics, Micro Tech, Motus GI, Magentiq Eye, Norgine, and Endo Tools Therapeutics, and consultancy fees from Motus GI and Magentiq Eye. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) has rapidly increased over recent decades, but costs related to CD remain poorly quantified., Objective: This systematic review assessed the economic burden of CD in North America and Europe., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify English-language literature from 2007 to 2018 that assessed costs, cost effectiveness, and health resource utilization for CD., Results: Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 (57.1%) addressed costs of testing and diagnosis; 33 (67.3%) were from Europe. The cost per positive CD diagnosis of testing patients already undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for other indications ranged from 1300 Canadian dollars ($Can) in Canada (2016 value) to €44,712 in the Netherlands (2013 value). Adding the CD test was cost effective when it combined diagnostic modalities (e.g., serology and biopsy). Direct annual excess costs to a US payer per diagnosed CD patient totaled $US6000 (2013 value) more than for a person without CD, chiefly due to outpatient care. Hospitalizations, emergency visits, and medication use were more common with CD. After initiating a gluten-free diet (GFD), patients visited primary care providers less often, used more medications, and missed fewer days from school and work., Conclusions: Most of the few available economic studies of CD assess testing and diagnosis costs, especially in Europe. Methods of testing generally are considered cost effective when they combine diagnostic modalities in symptomatic patients. Most costs to a payer of managing CD derive from outpatient care. Following GFD initiation, patients lose fewer days from work and school than pretreatment.

Background: Although studies have assessed the prevalence of celiac disease (CD), less is known about the prevalence of gluten avoidance because of nonceliac gluten sensitivity (GS). The avoidance of foods other than gluten is also understudied in these 2 groups., Methods: Participants visiting a web site for information about a newly developed portable gluten detection device (Nima) were instructed to complete questions about food and gluten avoidance patterns. We assessed the relative proportion of CD and GS across world regions and United States (US) regions and determined the distribution of food avoidance patterns., Results: CD was reported in 6474 respondents and GS in 2597 respondents. Within the United States, the majority of avoiders of gluten reported having CD (69.8%), with the highest ratio of CD to GS in the Northeast (CD: 74.3%; GS: 25.7%) and the lowest in the West (CD: 67.1%; GS: 32.9%) (P<0.0001). Compared with the United States, all other countries had lower proportions of GS, with the lowest in Argentina (CD: 94.7%; GS: 5.3%; P<0.0001). Food avoidances other than gluten were reported by 25% of respondents, with avoidance in all categories more common in GS than CD (P<0.0001)., Conclusion: There is a significant difference in the relative rates of CD and GS within the United States and worldwide. Food avoidance other than gluten seems to be a more common component of GS than CD. Future research should focus on the causes of these international and US regional differences and the significance of other food avoidances.