Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs. METHODS: Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured. RESULTS: There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT00102011.

Inflammatory bowel disease patient concerns and experiences on transition to home-based infusions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC issued guidance advising patients and providers to adopt social distancing practices such as home-based infusions (H-BI). METHODS: We performed a mixed methods evaluation to summarize perceptions, concerns, and experiences with H-BI among all inflammatory bowel disease patients 18-90 years of age who transitioned to home-based infliximab or vedolizumab infusions between March to July 2020 at a tertiary care center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed using an iterative, inductive thematic approach. Baseline characteristics and outcome on safety, COVID-19 transmission, delays in infusions, and H-BI persistence were collected. RESULTS: Of the 57 participants who transitioned to H-BI, 20 (33%) responded. Four major categories and six major themes related to expectations, experience, perceived safety, and logistical factors were identified. Initial perceptions were mixed, however these resolved. One patient developed COVID-19, one patient experienced an adverse event, 12 (21%) patients experienced an infusion delay, and 6 (11%) patients transitioned from H-BI. DISCUSSION: Despite mixed initial perceptions, respondents had a positive experience with most respondents planning to continue H-BI after the pandemic resolves. Several real-world actionable barriers were identified related to scheduling, communication between stakeholders, and nursing quality. No major safety concerns were identified.

Tofacitinib for Biologic-Experienced Hospitalized Patients With Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite rescue therapy, more than 30% of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) require colectomy. Tofacitinib is a rapidly acting Janus kinase inhibitor with proven efficacy in ulcerative colitis. Tofacitinib may provide additional means for preventing colectomy in patients with ASUC. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed evaluating the efficacy of tofacitinib induction in biologic-experienced patients admitted with ASUC requiring intravenous corticosteroids. Tofacitinib patients were matched 1:3 to controls according to gender and date of admission. Using Cox regression adjusted for disease severity, we estimated the 90-day risk of colectomy. Rates of complications and steroid dependence were examined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Forty patients who received tofacitinib were matched 1:3 to controls (n = 113). Tofacitinib was protective against colectomy at 90 days compared with matched controls (hazard ratio [HR], 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.81; P = .018). When stratifying according to treatment dose, 10 mg three times daily (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.56; P = .008) was protective, whereas 10 mg twice daily was not significantly protective (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.21-2.09; P = .5). Rate of complications and steroid dependence were similar between tofacitinib and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib with concomitant intravenous corticosteroids may be an effective induction strategy in biologic-experienced patients hospitalized with ASUC. Prospective trials are needed to identify the safety, optimal dose, frequency, and duration of tofacitinib for ASUC.

Opioid Use Associated With Higher Costs Among Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Background: Opioid use by patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been associated with poorer health outcomes. This study describes socioeconomic characteristics; health utilization trends; and costs of patients with IBD and either no opioid prescriptions, or in 1 of 3 opioid duration categories based on Center for Disease Control guidelines: acute (0-30 days), moderate (31-90 days), or chronic (>90 days). We utilized the Cost of IBD Care Optum research database results for this study. Methods: The Optum Research Database from years 2007 to 2016 including IBD patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance in the United States was used. Additional inclusion criteria included continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefit coverage for at least 24 months (12 months before and 12 months after the index date of IBD diagnosis). The association between costs and patient characteristics were assessed across a no opioid use group during this period and the 3 opioid duration groups. Results: Among 51,178 IBD patients, 33,229 (64.93%) were part of the no opioid use group, while 13,635 (26.64%) were in acute, 1698 (3.32%) were in moderate, and 2616 (5.11%) were in chronic use groups, as determined by pharmacy claims data. Patients in the chronic group were more likely to be white (75.38%) compared to all the other groups (no opioid use, acute, and moderate), have attained less education (only high school diploma), have had lower incomes, and have had Medicare instead of commercial insurance. Patients across all opioid prescription groups were more likely to have had diagnoses associated with pain in the prior year, with rates increasing by the length of opioid prescription (63.68%, 80.17%, and 86.11% for acute, moderate, and chronic groups). Compared to the no-use group, the acute group had more ambulatory (outpatient) visits, while the chronic group had fewer. Emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations were higher in all 3 opioid groups compared to the no opioid use group. Ambulatory, emergency department, inpatient, and total (medical + pharmacy) costs were higher in all 3 opioid groups, compared to the no opioid use group, even after adjusting for demographic and clinical patient characteristics. Conclusions: Among patients with IBD, increasing opioid use was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and, concomitantly, higher healthcare costs during this period.

Mental Health Costs of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Mental health diagnoses (MHDs) were identified as significant drivers of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related costs in an analysis titled "Cost of Care Initiative" supported by the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. In this subanalysis, we sought to characterize and compare IBD patients with and without MHDs based on insurance claims data in terms of demographic traits, medical utilization, and annualized costs of care. METHODS: We analyzed the Optum Research Database of administrative claims from years 2007 to 2016 representing commercially insured and Medicare Advantage insured IBD patients in the United States. Inflammatory bowel disease patients with and without an MHD were compared in terms of demographics (age, gender, race), insurance type, IBD-related medical utilization (ambulatory visits, emergency department [ED] visits, and inpatient hospitalizations), and total IBD-related costs. Only patients with costs >$0 in each of the utilization categories were included in the cost estimates. RESULTS: Of the total IBD study cohort of 52,782 patients representing 179,314 person-years of data, 22,483 (42.6%) patients had at least 1 MHD coded in their claims data with a total of 46,510 person-years in which a patient had a coded MHD. The most commonly coded diagnostic categories were depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, adjustment disorders, substance use disorders, and bipolar and related disorders. Compared with patients without an MHD, a significantly greater percentage of IBD patients with MHDs were female (61.59% vs 48.63%), older than 75 years of age (9.59% vs 6.32%), white (73.80% vs 70.17%), and significantly less likely to be younger than 25 years of age (9.18% vs 11.39%) compared with those without mental illness (P < 0.001). Patients with MHDs had significantly more ED visits (14.34% vs 7.62%, P < 0.001) and inpatient stays (19.65% vs 8.63%, P < 0.001) compared with those without an MHD. Concomitantly, patients with MHDs had significantly higher ED costs ($970 vs $754, P < 0.001) and inpatient costs ($39,205 vs $29,550, P < 0.001) compared with IBD patients without MHDs. Patients with MHDs also had significantly higher total annual IBD-related surgical costs ($55,693 vs $40,486, P < 0.001) and nonsurgical costs (medical and pharmacy) ($17,220 vs $11,073, P < 0.001), and paid a larger portion of the total out-of-pocket cost for IBD services ($1017 vs $905, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients whose claims data contained both IBD-related and MHD-related diagnoses generated significantly higher costs compared with IBD patients without an MHD diagnosis. Based on these data, we speculate that health care costs might be reduced and the course of patients IBD might be improved if the IBD-treating provider recognized this link and implemented effective behavioral health screening and intervention as soon as an MHD was suspected during management of IBD patients. Studies investigating best screening and intervention strategies for MHDs are needed.

Variations in Health Care Utilization Patterns Among Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients at Risk for High Medical Service Utilization Enrolled in High Deductible Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasing in prevalence as a cost control device for slowing health care cost growth by reducing nonessential medical service utilization. High cost-sharing associated with HDHPs can lead to significant financial distress and worse disease outcomes. We hypothesize that chronic disease patients are delaying or foregoing necessary medical care due to health care costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of IBD patients at risk for high medical service utilization with continuous enrollment in either an HDHP or THP from 2009 to 2016 were identified using the MarketScan database. Health care costs were compared between insurance plan groups by Kruskal-Wallis test. Temporal trends in office visits, colonoscopies, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations were evaluated using additive decomposition time series analysis. RESULTS: Of 605,862 patients with a diagnosis of IBD, we identified 13,052 eligible patients. Annual out-of-pocket costs were higher in the HDHP group (n = 524) than the THP group (n = 12,458) ($2870 vs $1,864; P < 0.001) without any difference in total health care expenses ($23,029 vs $23,794; P = 0.583). Enrollment in an HDHP influenced colonoscopy, ED visit, and hospitalization utilization timing. Colonoscopies peaked in the fourth quarter, ED visits peaked in the first quarter, and hospitalizations peaked in the third and fourth quarter. CONCLUSIONS: High-deductible health plan enrollment does not change the cost of care; however, it shifts health care costs onto patients and changes the timing of the care they receive. High-deductible health plans are incentivizing delays in obtaining health care with a potential to cause worse disease outcomes and financial distress. Further evaluation is warranted.

Younger Physicians and Longer Withdrawal Times Are Associated With Detection of Advanced Neoplasia in a Large Community Practice.

Studies assessing colonoscopic practice have demonstrated variation in adenoma detection rate,1 detection rates of advanced adenomas,2,3 and detection rates of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs).4,5 Our aims were to study the patient-, provider-, and procedure-level variables associated with detection rates of adenoma, SSLs, and advanced neoplasia in screening colonoscopies performed in large community practice.

The Cost of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Initiative From the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation.

BACKGROUND: The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation's Cost of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Care Initiative seeks to quantify the wide-ranging health care costs affecting patients living with IBD. We aimed to (1) describe the annualized direct and indirect costs of care for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), (2) determine the longitudinal drivers of these costs, and (3) characterize the cost of care for newly diagnosed patients. METHODS: We analyzed the Optum Research Database from the years 2007 to 2016, representing commercially insured and Medicare Advantage-insured patients in the United States. Inclusion for the study was limited to those who had continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefit coverage for at least 24 months (12 months before through 12 months after the index date of diagnosis). The value of patient time spent on health care was calculated as number of workplace hours lost due to health care encounters multiplied by the patients' estimated average wage derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Comparisons between IBD patients and non-IBD patients were analyzed based on demographics, health plan type, and length of follow-up. We used generalized linear models to estimate the association between total annual costs and various patient variables. RESULTS: There were 52,782 IBD patients (29,062 UC; 23,720 CD) included in the analysis (54.1% females). On a per-annual basis, patients with IBD incurred a greater than 3-fold higher direct cost of care compared with non-IBD controls ($22,987 vs $6956 per-member per-year paid claims) and more than twice the out-of-pocket costs ($2213 vs $979 per-year reported costs), with all-cause IBD costs rising after 2013. Patients with IBD also experienced significantly higher costs associated with time spent on health care as compared with controls. The burden of costs was most notable in the first year after initial IBD diagnosis (mean = $26,555). The study identified several key drivers of cost for IBD patients: treatment with specific therapeutics (biologics, opioids, or steroids); ED use; and health care services associated with relapsing disease, anemia, or mental health comorbidity. CONCLUSION: The costs of care for IBD have increased in the last 5 years and are driven by specific therapeutics and disease features. In addition, compared with non-IBD controls, IBD patients are increasingly incurring higher costs associated with health care utilization, out-of-pocket expenditures, and workplace productivity losses. There is a pressing need for cost-effective strategies to address these burdens on patients and families affected by IBD.

Building a Team-Based Gastroenterology Practice With Advanced Practice Providers.

The use of advanced practice providers (APPs), such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, has grown substantially in gastroenterology practices in the United States. The first formal training programs appeared in the mid-1960s; however, incorporation of APPs into gastroenterology practices occurred sporadically until the early 1990s, when several large practices began utilizing APPs in both outpatient and inpatient environments. Over the next 20 years, APPs became increasingly more common. In hospital settings, they provide continuity of care, especially for practices that rotate physicians into hospital services on a periodic basis. Efficient use of APPs frees physicians to focus on new patients, procedures, and complex chronic care management. APPs who have independent, appropriately managed schedules can generate revenue that covers salary and benefits. Billing and coding for APPs can be complex, but once regulatory issues are understood, these aspects become straightforward and can be easily applied to gastroenterology practices. There is an ongoing need for more formal training and onboarding resources, which could be met by national gastroenterology and hepatology societies. This article reviews the various ways in which APPs can be incorporated into gastroenterology and hepatology care.

Efficacy of Induction Therapy With High-Intensity Tofacitinib in 4 Patients With Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis.

As many as 25% of patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis are hospitalized with an episode of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC).1 The standard of care for patients hospitalized with ASUC relies on rapid induction with intravenous (IV) corticosteroids. Up to 30% of patients do not respond to corticosteroids alone.2 Rescue therapy with infliximab or cyclosporine has been shown to reduce rates of colectomy to 20% by 90 days.3,4 This still represents a significant rate of treatment failure, which leads to an unplanned and irreversible surgery. In recent years, increasing numbers of patients admitted with ASUC have already failed infliximab therapy, highlighting the need for additional treatment options for these patients. Tofacitinib is a rapidly acting, oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor that was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of ulcerative colitis.5 We present the first reported use of off-label, high-intensity tofacitinib in 4 patients admitted to our institution with ASUC predicted to fail medical management.