Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening

Results From a Randomized Trial

Christopher H. Blevins, Jason S. Egginton, Nilay D Shah, Michele L. Johnson, Prasad G Iyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients’ preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 23 2018

Fingerprint

Digestive System Endoscopy
Barrett Esophagus
Patient Preference
Endoscopy
Telephone
Interviews

Keywords

  • Barrett esophagus
  • esophageal adenocarcinoma
  • patient preferences
  • screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening : Results From a Randomized Trial. / Blevins, Christopher H.; Egginton, Jason S.; Shah, Nilay D; Johnson, Michele L.; Iyer, Prasad G.

In: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 23.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7ae6420899904832983731a0d0de2ccf,
title = "Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening: Results From a Randomized Trial",
abstract = "Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients’ preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.",
keywords = "Barrett esophagus, esophageal adenocarcinoma, patient preferences, screening",
author = "Blevins, {Christopher H.} and Egginton, {Jason S.} and Shah, {Nilay D} and Johnson, {Michele L.} and Iyer, {Prasad G}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1097/MCG.0000000000000991",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology",
issn = "0192-0790",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening

T2 - Results From a Randomized Trial

AU - Blevins, Christopher H.

AU - Egginton, Jason S.

AU - Shah, Nilay D

AU - Johnson, Michele L.

AU - Iyer, Prasad G

PY - 2018/1/23

Y1 - 2018/1/23

N2 - Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients’ preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.

AB - Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients’ preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.

KW - Barrett esophagus

KW - esophageal adenocarcinoma

KW - patient preferences

KW - screening

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041599692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041599692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000991

DO - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000991

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

SN - 0192-0790

ER -