Objective The role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases has long been established. Recently, colon CE (CCE) has been suggested as an alternative to colonoscopy. CE has been traditionally conducted at endoscopy units. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a switch was made to ‘at-home CE’ (ACE) which has continued to date. This study is an evaluation of ACE, focusing on safety, efficacy, feasibility and patient perceptions. Methods The study evaluated the performance of ACE in 105 consecutive patients, considering procedure outcomes, completion rates, complications and patient satisfaction. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess perceptions and preferences of 84 ACE patients and 43 in-hospital CE patients. ACE procedure involved preassessment calls, bowel preparation, equipment setup, virtual verbal consent, capsule ingestion, booster alerts and equipment collection. Descriptive statistics and tests of independence were used for data analysis. Results All 105 ACE patients were able to have CE at home, with completion rates for SBCE, CCE and panenteric (Crohn’s) CE at 98.3%, 75.9% and 55.6%, respectively. Patients reported low levels of pain (94.1%), embarrassment (98.8%) and anxiety (82.1%). ACE saved time and money, as 42.9% of patients were able to avoid work absence and 52.4% avoided transportation costs. ACE patients reported high satisfaction with the overall procedure (mean=8.5, SD=1.9), and 83.3% would prefer CE again at home. Conclusion This study demonstrates that at-home CEs are clinically effective and well received by patients, providing the opportunity to conduct the test in the comfort of patients’ homes.

Background Sequential drug treatment with biological agents in ulcerative colitis (UC) is becoming increasingly complex. There are few studies comparing head-to-head outcomes in second-line treatments. The study assesses whether using anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF)-α therapy following the α4β7 integrin blocker vedolizumab (VDZ) or VDZ after an anti-TNF has more favourable clinical outcomes in UC in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods Patients with UC who were exposed to first-line anti-TNF (adalimumab or infliximab) or VDZ who subsequently switched to the alternate class between May 2013 and August 2020 were identified by reviewing patient databases at 10 hospitals. Data were collected retrospectively using patient records. Baseline demographics, disease activity indices, biochemical markers, endoscopic Mayo score, colectomy rates, treatment persistence and urgent hospital utilisation composite endpoint (UHUC) rates were examined over a 52-week period. Results Second-line week 52 treatment persistence was higher in the VDZ group (71/81, 89%) versus the anti-TNF group (15/34, 44%; p=0.0001), as were week 52 colectomy-free survival (VDZ: 77/80, 96%, vs anti-TNF: 26/32, 81%; p=0.009), week 52 UHUC survival (VDZ: 68/84, 81%, vs anti-TNF: 20/34, 59%; p=0.002) and week 52 corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) rates (VDZ: 22/34, 65%, vs anti-TNF: 4/20, 20%; p=0.001). Conclusion Compared with second-line anti TNF usage, the VDZ second-line cohort had significantly higher 52-week treatment persistence, UHUC survival, higher colectomy-free survival rates and higher week 52 CFCR. These data suggest that VDZ is an effective biologic in UC as a second-line therapy after anti-TNF exposure. It highlights the effect of biological order on clinically important outcomes.

Objectives: To evaluate whether quantitative measurement of faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) using faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can be used to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) for patients who present to primary care with high risk symptoms defined by national guidelines for urgent referral for suspected cancer (NICE NG12). Design: Prospective cohort study carried out between April 2017 and March 2019. Setting: 59 GP practices in London and 24 hospitals in England. Participants: Symptomatic patients in England referred to the urgent CRC pathway who provided a faecal sample for FIT in addition to standard investigations for cancer. Main outcome measures: CRC was confirmed by established clinical and histopathology procedures. f-Hb (microgr per gram of stool) was measured in a central laboratory blinded to cancer outcome. We calculated sensitivity (percentage of patients with CRC who have f-Hb exceeding specified cut-offs); false-positive rate [FPR] (percentage of patients without CRC whose f-Hb exceeds the same cut-offs); and positive predictive value [PPV] (percentage of all patients with f-Hb above the cut-offs who have CRC). Results: 4676 patients were recruited of whom 3596 patients were included (had a valid FIT test and a known definitive diagnosis). Among the 3596, median age was 67 years, 53% were female and 78% had colonoscopy. 90 patients were diagnosed with CRC, 7 with other cancers, and 3499 with no cancer found. f-Hb did not correlate with age, sex or ethnicity. Using f-Hb greater than or equal to 4 microgr/g (lowest limit of detection), sensitivity, FPR and PPV were 87.8%, 27.0% and 7.7% respectively. Using f-Hb greater than or equal to 10 microgr/g, the corresponding measures were 83.3%, 19.9% and 9.7%. 15 patients with CRC had f-Hb below 10 microgr/g. If FIT had been used at thresholds of 10 microg/gr or 4 microgr/g, 1 in 6 or 1 in 8 patients with cancer respectively would have been missed. If the absence of anaemia or abdominal pain is used alongside f-Hb 10 microgr/g, only 1 in 18 cancers would be missed but 56% of people without CRC could potentially avoid further investigations including colonoscopies. Conclusions: In our study, if FIT alone had been used to determine urgent referral for patients with high risk symptoms for definitive cancer investigation, some patients with bowel cancer would not have been diagnosed. If used in conjunction with clinical features, particularly in the absence of anaemia, the efficacy of FIT is significantly improved. With appropriate safety netting, FIT could be used to focus secondary care diagnostic capacity on patients most at risk of CRC.

Colonoscopy continues to evolve as equipment and techniques improve. Traditionally, colonoscopy has focused on adenoma detection, characterisation and resection as the primary aims, and there has certainly been considerable activity over the last few years in terms of addressing these important issues. This review article not only will discuss progress made in these areas but also will focus on when to colonoscope in terms of introduction of faecal immunochemical testing, how to insert with the advent of water-assisted insertion, and how to withdraw using a bundle of evidence-based techniques to improve adenoma detection. In addition, the ramifications of failing to discover polyps and of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer are highlighted.

Background Endoscopy activity has been increasing in the UK for many years. However, the increasing demand is currently disproportionate to delivered capacity. This, in combination with mandatory efficiency savings, presents an ongoing challenge in the effective continued delivery of diagnostic endoscopy services. Recent developments New initiatives in the field of endoscopy that may impact on resource include: faecal immunochemical test, straight to test referral systems, nurse endoscopists, home enemas and split dose bowel preparation. Future potential System review and improvement is paramount to ensure the diagnostic pathway is of a high clinical quality, efficient, patient focused and sustainable.

Introduction Demand for lower gastrointestinal (LGI) endoscopy in the UK has doubled (1). In an increasingly ageing and co-morbid population, multi-disciplinary team (MDT) discussion is necessary to plan complex endoscopic resection (ER) within 8 weeks in an already overstretched service (2). We established a LGI complex polyp MDT meeting to meet this need and assessed if this process improved utilisation of therapeutic endoscopy points and scheduling efficiency. Methods A weekly MDT including schedulers, clinical endoscopists, specialist registrars and 2 expert endoscopists (EE) was held (Oct’18 – Feb’19). All cases discussed at the MDT had an initial referral for endoscopy. Cases were divided into known polyp/s to discuss ER, those with previous complex ER requiring surveillance and patients with CT colonography (CTC) positive for polyps. Polyp complexity was assessed by SMSA score (3). Patients for ER were assigned a points value for scheduling and a decision made if an EE was needed. Outcomes were compared to the initial referral to look for changes in management plan and points allocated. Results In total, 115 patients were discussed (Table 1). Median SMSA score for each group was 8. 7 patients did not require further endoscopy. 15 patients were referred for ER. 35 patients had previous ER and surveillance scheduled. Compared to the original referral, the management plan for 57 patients (49%) was changed saving 55 points. 90 cases required an EE saving 35 points. Conclusions A complex polyp MDT changed the original management plan in half of patients referred and improved capacity with 3 lists saved (12 points/list) for polyps requiring expert ER. Such an MDT should be used in all centres that perform complex, high volume endoscopy. Abstract OTH-01 Table 1 Polyp characteristics and outcomes from MDT discussion 1. Scoping the future. CRUK, 2015 2. BSG guidelines for management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Rutter MD, Chattree A, Barbour JA et al. Gut 2015 3. The SMSA scoring system for determining the complex of a polyp. Gupta S, Miskovic D, Bhandari P, et al. Gut Suppl 2011