Search

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives involving patients with chronic respiratory disease (CRD) are rare. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients with CRD, carers and interested citizens regarding the relevance and need for a PPI network and suggestions for its implementation., Methods: A qualitative study based on focus groups was conducted. Recruitment occurred through invitations on social media platforms and to patients who have participated in previous asthma studies of the team. Three focus groups were conducted, via video conference, using a semi-structured guide. Thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers and discussed with the extended team., Results: Fifteen patients with CRD, one carer and one interested citizen (13 females, median 36 (range: 18-72) years) participated. All participants acknowledged the importance of implementing a collaborative network and demonstrated interest in being integrated. Participants acknowledged the importance of their involvement in several phases of the research cycle. The main aim identified for this network was to facilitate communication between patients and researchers. Participants regarded the integration of patients, carers, researchers and healthcare professionals from different scientific areas as relevant. The use of digital platforms to attract members and support the work, together with group dynamics and regular meetings, were some of the most relevant practical considerations for implementing the network. The identified facilitators for their engagement were sharing experiences, researchers' and healthcare professionals' support and feedback and schedule flexibility. The identified barriers included the amount of time dedicated, low health/digital literacy and the potential detachment of nondiagnosed patients or those with low symptom impact in daily life., Conclusion: Patients, carers and citizens acknowledged the relevance of implementing a collaborative network and demonstrated interest in active participation in every stage of the health research cycle. A deeper knowledge of the barriers and facilitators identified in this study could support implementing these initiatives in Portugal., Patient or Public Contribution: This study was designed by a research team that included one patient with asthma and one carer. They were specifically involved in building the study protocol and the interview guide. They also gave feedback regarding the electronic consent form and the short sociodemographic questionnaire created, namely by removing noncontributing words or phrases and rewording expressions. The lay summary was written by another patient with asthma. All participants of this study were invited to implement and integrate the ConectAR network-a collaborative network of research in respiratory health., Public Summary: In Portugal, chronic respiratory patients do not have an active role as 'coinvestigators'. This study aimed to acknowledge if patients and citizens considered a patient and public involvement network useful, whose main purpose would be to facilitate communication between patients and researchers. A study based on online group interviews was carried out with patients with chronic respiratory diseases and interested citizens, both recruited on social media platforms. Participants considered that bringing together patients, carers, researchers and healthcare professionals is valuable because sharing different experiences and perspectives may help patients to improve their daily lives and increase research quality. In conclusion, patients agree that implementing a collaborative network with researchers and healthcare professionals and participating in the health research cycle is quite preponderant. Acknowledging what can help and deter this network may be beneficial to implementing this type of initiative in Portugal., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There has been resurgence in the use of bismuth quadruple therapy (proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, tetracycline and metronidazole) for treating Helicobacter pylori infection thanks to a three-in-one single-capsule formulation., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the single-capsule bismuth quadruple therapy., Methods: Data were collected in a multicentre, prospective registry of the clinical practice of gastroenterologists on the management of H. pylori infection, where patients were registered at the Asociación Española de Gastroenterologia REDCap database on an electronic case report form until January 2020. Effectiveness by modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol as well as multivariable analysis were performed. Independent factors evaluated were: age, gender, indication, compliance, proton pump inhibitor dose and treatment line., Results: Finally, 2100 patients were prescribed single-capsule bismuth quadruple therapy following the technical sheet (i.e., three capsules every 6 h for 10 days). The majority of these patients were naive (64%), with an average age of 50 years, 64% women and 16% with peptic ulcer. An overall modified intention-to-treat effectiveness of 92% was achieved. Eradication was over 90% in first-line treatment (95% modified intention-to-treat, n = 1166), and this was maintained as a rescue therapy, both in second (89% modified intention-to-treat, n = 375) and subsequent lines of therapy (third to sixth line: 92% modified intention-to-treat, n = 236). Compliance was the factor most closely associated with treatment effectiveness. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, and 3% of patients reported a severe adverse event, leading to discontinuation of treatment in 1.7% of cases., Conclusions: Single-capsule bismuth quadruple therapy achieved H. pylori eradication in approximately 90% of patients in real-world clinical practice, both as a first-line and rescue treatment, with good compliance and a favourable safety profile., (© 2020 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, the ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. The ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritise quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures area local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice., (This article is published simultaneously in the journals Endoscopy and the United European Gastroenterology Journal. Copyright 2020 © European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and © by the United European Gastroenterology.)

Background: Although a 1-day low-fibre diet before colonoscopy is currently recommended, some endoscopists prescribe a 3-day diet., Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the influence of a 3-day versus a 1-day low-fibre diet on bowel preparation quality, patient tolerability and adherence., Methods: Outpatients scheduled for total colonoscopy were randomized in two groups, 3-day versus 1-day low-fibre diet, performing a 4-litre polyethylene glycol split-dose. The primary outcome was a reduction of inappropriate preparations in the 3-day low-fibre diet arm from 15% to 5% (bowel preparation was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale). Secondary outcomes were adherence to, difficulty to perform, difficulty to obtain and willingness to repeat the diet. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the primary outcome., Results: A total of 412 patients were randomized (206 per group). Bowel preparation quality was similar between groups. On ITT analysis ( n  = 412), adequate bowel preparation was 91.7% (3-day diet) versus 94.7% (1-day diet), p  = 0.24 and on PP analysis ( n  = 400) 93.5% versus 96.5%, respectively, p  = 0.16. Difficulty to perform the diet was significantly higher on the 3-day diet, p  = 0.04. No differences were found on difficulty to obtain the diet, willingness to repeat the diet, adverse events and intra-colonoscopy findings., Conclusion: A 3-day low-fibre diet does not bring benefit to the bowel preparation quality and is harder to perform than a 1-day diet., (© Author(s) 2019.)

Background: Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy., Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe., Methods: We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50-74 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was €3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was €397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at €39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of €4 and €191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2694/quality-adjusted life years versus €103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy., Conclusion: Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available.

Background: Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer is debatable in countries with an intermediate risk., Objective: The objective of this article is to determine the cost-utility of screening strategies for gastric cancer in a European country., Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model comparing three screening strategies versus no screening: stand-alone upper endoscopy, endoscopy combined with a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test or pepsinogens serologic screening. Clinical data were collected from systematic reviews, costs from published national data and utilities as quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold was set at €37,000 (2016 prices)., Results: Upper endoscopy combined with screening colonoscopy (every 10 or 5 years) had an ICER of 15,407/QALY and €30,908/QALY respectively, stand-alone endoscopic screening (every five years) an ICER of €70,693/QALY and pepsinogens screening an ICER of €143,344/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that only endoscopic costs <€75, a provision of only three endoscopies per patient or a gastric cancer risk >25/100,000 would make stand-alone endoscopic screening cost-effective., Conclusion: Endoscopic gastric cancer screening in Europe can be cost-effective if combined with a screening colonoscopy in countries with a gastric cancer risk ≥10 per 100,000.