The Impact of Difficult Biliary Cannulation on Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Secondary Analysis of the Stent versus Indomethacin Trial Dataset.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Difficult biliary cannulation (DBC) is a known risk factor for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). To better understand how DBC increases PEP risk, we examined the interplay between technical aspects of DBC and known PEP risk factors. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing rectal indomethacin alone with the combination of rectal indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for PEP prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) DBC with high pre-procedure risk for PEP, 2) DBC without high pre-procedure risk, and 3) non-DBC at high pre-procedure risk. RESULTS: In all, 1601 (84.1%) participants experienced DBC, which required a mean of 12 (SD 10) cannulation attempts and mean duration of 14.7 minutes (SD 14.9). PEP rate was highest (20.7%) in DBC with high pre-procedure risk, followed by non-DBC with high pre-procedure risk (13.5%) and then DBC without high pre-procedure risk (8.8%). Increasing number of PD-wire passages (aOR:1.97, 95% CI:1.25-3.1) was associated with PEP in DBC, but PD injection, pancreatic sphincterotomy and number of cannulation attempts were not associated with PEP. Combining indomethacin with PD stenting lowered PEP risk (aOR:0.61, 95% CI:0.44-0.84) in DBCs. This protective effect was evident in up to at least 4 PD wire passages. CONCLUSIONS: DBC confers higher PEP risk in additive fashion to pre-procedural risk factors. PD wire passages appear to add the greatest PEP risk in DBCs, but combining indomethacin with PD stenting reduces this risk, even with increasing PD wire passages.

Technical Factors Associated With the Benefit of Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement During High-Risk Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Secondary Analysis of the SVI Trial Data Set.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49-1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Skin Clearance is Associated with Reduced Treatment Failure in Patients with Psoriasis: Real-World Evidence from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Complete and near-complete skin clearance have become achievable treatment goals for patients with psoriasis receiving systemic biologic therapies. However, there is limited real-world evidence regarding the impact of the degree of skin clearance on biologic treatment patterns among these patients. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study assessed the relationship between degree of skin clearance following initiation of a systemic biologic therapy and treatment failure among patients from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry (April 2015-August 2021). Patients had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score > 5 at systemic biologic therapy initiation and ≥ 1 follow-up visit(s) within 15 months of initiation. Treatment failure (discontinuation due to poor response/adverse event; addition of non-biologic therapy) and degree of skin clearance (measured by PASI) were assessed following biologic initiation. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the association between PASI response level and treatment failure over follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 2701 patient initiations from 2516 unique patients with 3846 total visits over follow-up. Over half of the patient initiations (n = 1412; 52.3%) were among patients with PASI >10. Treatment failure occurred in 1.3% of visits at which PASI100 was achieved, while those achieving PASI90 - < 100 and PASI75 - < 90 had treatment failure rates of 3.4% and 3.5%, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, the risk of treatment failure was two to three times higher in the PASI90 - < 100 (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35, 5.02; p = 0.004) and PASI75 < 90 (HR = 2.97; CI 1.58, 5.58; p = 0.001) groups compared to the PASI100 group. The risk of treatment failure was more than 20 times higher in the < PASI75 group versus the PASI100 group (HR = 22.26; CI 13.32, 37.21; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that patients are more likely to remain on a systemic biologic therapy if they achieve near-complete or complete skin clearance, supporting the continued need to target skin clearance as a treatment goal in psoriasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02707341.

Many people with psoriasis are often treated with biologic medications that work to improve symptoms associated with psoriasis, including inflammation. These medications can lead to clear or almost-clear skin for many people. However, there is limited information available about how achieving this goal affects whether patients continue taking their biologic medication or add a new non-biologic medication. The data source for this study was a database of patients with psoriasis (the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry) that records how clear patients' skin is and what medications they take. Over 1 year after starting a biologic medication, approximately 1 out of every 100 patients that achieved clear skin after taking a biologic medication stopped using that medication, and approximately 3 out of every 100 patients with almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication stopped using that medication. Meanwhile, around 20 out of every 100 patients that did not have clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication stopped using that medication. Furthermore, patients who did not have clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication had more than 20 times greater risk of stopping their medication than those who did have clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication. These results suggest that patients are more likely to remain on their biologic medication if they experience clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication and that patients and their providers should aim for this goal when taking a biologic medication.

Durability of Near-Complete Skin Clearance in Patients with Psoriasis Using Systemic Biologic Therapies: Real-World Evidence from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Near-complete skin clearance has become a rapidly achievable treatment goal for patients with psoriasis receiving systemic biologic therapies. However, real-world evidence for durability of near-complete skin clearance and risk factors associated with loss of near-complete skin clearance is limited. METHODS: This study described durability of near-complete skin clearance (≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index from initiation; PASI90) and identified clinical factors or patient characteristics associated with loss of PASI90 among patients with psoriasis from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry (April 2015-August 2021). Included patients had PASI > 5 at biologic initiation and achieved PASI90 at approximately 6 months from initiation (index). A Kaplan-Meier estimate described time to loss of treatment response over 24 months follow-up from index. Proportional hazards regression was used to identify independent predictors of loss of treatment response. RESULTS: This study included 687 patient initiations (instances of patients initiating a biologic). Following achievement of PASI90, treatment response was maintained in more than half of patient initiations (54%). Treatment response was maintained at 6, 12, and 18 months from index in an estimated 73% (95% [confidence interval] CI 70-77%), 60% (95% CI 56-63%), and 50% (95% CI 47-54%) of patient initiations, respectively. Adjusted hazards regression suggested non-White race, full-time employment, greater body weight, concomitant psoriatic arthritis, prior use of biologics, and clinically meaningful skin symptoms were associated with loss of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Among real-world patients with psoriasis who achieved PASI90 with biologic therapy, about one-quarter lost response at 6 months, and half lost response at 18 months. Prior use of a biologic therapy and clinically meaningful skin symptoms at index, including itch and skin pain, were associated with loss of treatment response. Therefore, dermatologists may consider focusing on patient-reported symptoms as part of any intervention designed to reduce the likelihood of loss of response to biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02707341.

Many people with psoriasis are treated with biologic medications that work to improve symptoms associated with psoriasis, including inflammation. These medications can lead to almost clear skin for many people. However, there is limited information available about how long almost clear skin can be maintained with biologic medications, and what predicts who is likely to lose it. To explore these questions, we examined a database of patients with psoriasis (the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry) that records how clear patients' skin is and the medications they take. Out of every 100 patients, 54 maintained almost clear skin and stayed on their original medication for 2 years after first having almost clear skin. Out of every 100 patients, 73, 60, and 50 maintained almost clear skin and remained on their original medication at 6, 12, and 18 months after they had achieved this response. The results indicated that patients who were not White, worked full time, previously used a biologic medication, or had itchy and/or painful skin after they had achieved almost-clear skin were more likely to change their medication and/or no longer have almost-clear skin. These results suggest that dermatologists may consider focusing on patient-reported characteristics when deciding how to treat their patients, to reduce the likelihood that they lose their response to the medication they are prescribed.

Clinical Characteristics of Registry Participants with Psoriatic Arthritis Initiating Guselkumab: An Analysis from the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.

BACKGROUND: The monoclonal antibody guselkumab is the first selective inhibitor of the interleukin-23 p19 subunit approved to treat adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Given its recent approval for active PsA, data describing patients with PsA initiating guselkumab outside of clinical trials are limited. OBJECTIVE: This analysis describes characteristics of patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed PsA initiating guselkumab in the US-based, prospective, observational CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry. METHODS: Demographics, lifestyle/disease characteristics, comorbidities, prior treatment, and disease activity were summarized for patients with PsA initiating guselkumab from registry inception through 30 September, 2021. RESULTS: Of 113 patients initiating guselkumab, the majority were female (63%), obese (67%), had psoriasis (89%), and initiated guselkumab as monotherapy (81%). Common comorbidities were hypertension (32%), depression (30%), and diabetes mellitus (26%). Mean tender (6.8) and swollen (2.0) joint counts, clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA score (19.1), and 57% of participants with ≥ 3% body surface area affected by psoriasis indicated moderate disease activity. Axial involvement was identified in 49% of patients. Median patient-reported pain and fatigue visual analog scale scores (0-100) were 60 and 59, respectively. Prior to guselkumab, 76% of patients had received two or more biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; the last therapy prior to guselkumab was a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in 81% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Registry participants with PsA initiating guselkumab had active peripheral joint and skin disease, with substantial pain and fatigue; a considerable proportion had axial involvement. Future studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guselkumab in this population.

Digestive Manifestations in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

An Unsuccessful Randomized Trial of Percutaneous vs Endoscopic Drainage of Suspected Malignant Hilar Obstruction.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are widely accepted but competing approaches for the management of malignant obstruction at the hilum of the liver. ERCP is favored in the United States on the basis of high success rates for non-hilar indications, the perceived safety and superior tissue sampling capability of ERCP relative to PTBD, and the avoidance of external drains that are undesirable to patients. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the 2 modalities in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma was terminated prematurely because of higher mortality in the PTBD group.1 In contrast, most observational data suggest that PTBD is superior for achieving complete drainage.2-6 Because the preferred procedure remains uncertain, we aimed to compare PTBD and ERCP as the primary intervention in patients with cholestasis due to malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).

Correction to: Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). METHODS: The INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded. DISCUSSION: The INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832 . Registered on 1 June 2017.

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. METHODS/DESIGN: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. DISCUSSION: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02476279, registered June 2015.