Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk. METHODS: Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events. RESULTS: Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Telehealth in Patients with Liver Disease During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a rapid expansion of telehealth services in hepatology. However, known racial and socioeconomic disparities in internet access potentially translate into barriers for the use of telehealth, particularly video technology. The specific aim of this study was to determine if disparities in race or socioeconomic status exist among patients utilizing telehealth visits during COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients evaluated in hepatology clinics at Duke University Health System. Visit attempts from a pre-COVID baseline period (January 1, 2020 through February 29, 2020; n = 3328) were compared to COVID period (April 1, 2020 through May 30, 2020; n = 3771). RESULTS: On multinomial regression modeling, increasing age was associated with higher odds of a phone or incomplete visit (canceled, no-show, or rescheduled after May 30,2020), and non-Hispanic Black race was associated with nearly twice the odds of completing a phone visit instead of video visit, compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Compared to private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare were associated with increased odds of completing a telephone visit, and Medicaid was associated with increased odds of incomplete visits. Being single or previously married (separated, divorced, widowed) was associated with increased odds of completing a phone compared to video visit compared to being married. CONCLUSIONS: Though liver telehealth has expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, disparities in overall use and suboptimal use (phone versus video) remain for vulnerable populations including those that are older, non-Hispanic Black, or have Medicare/Medicaid health insurance.

Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Adapting screening strategy to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk may improve efficiency for all stakeholders however limited tools for such risk stratification exist. Colorectal cancers usually evolve from advanced neoplasms that are present for years. We applied the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CRC Risk Assessment Tool, which calculates future risk of CRC, to determine whether it could be used to predict current advanced neoplasia (AN) in a veteran cohort undergoing a baseline screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective assessment of the relationship between future CRC risk predicted by the NCI tool, and the presence of AN at screening colonoscopy. Family, medical, dietary and physical activity histories were collected at the time of screening colonoscopy and used to calculate absolute CRC risk at 5, 10 and 20 years. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3121 veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy, 94% had complete data available to calculate risk (N = 2934, median age 63 years, 100% men, and 15% minorities). Prevalence of AN at baseline screening colonoscopy was 11 % (N = 313). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 5 years, AN prevalences were 6.54% (95% CI, 4.99, 8.09), 11.26% (95% CI, 9.28-13.24), and 14.21% (95% CI, 12.02-16.40). For tertiles of estimated risk at 10 years, the prevalences were 6.34% (95% CI, 4.81-7.87), 11.25% (95% CI, 9.27-13.23), and 14.42% (95% CI, 12.22-16.62). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 20 years, current AN prevalences were 7.54% (95% CI, 5.75-9.33), 10.53% (95% CI, 8.45-12.61), and 12.44% (95% CI, 10.2-14.68). The area under the curve for predicting current AN was 0.60 (95% CI; 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 10 years and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61, p < 0.0001) at 20 years. CONCLUSION: The NCI tool had modest discriminatory function for estimating the presence of current advanced neoplasia in veterans undergoing a first screening colonoscopy. These findings are comparable to other clinically utilized cancer risk prediction models and may be used to inform the benefit-risk assessment of screening, particularly for patients with competing comorbidities and lower risk, for whom a non-invasive screening approach is preferred.

A Roadmap for Value-Based Payment Models Among Patients With Cirrhosis.

Healthcare reimbursement is shifting from fee-for-service to fee-for-value. Cirrhosis, which costs the U.S. healthcare system as much as heart failure, is a prime target for value-based care. This article describes models in which physician groups or health systems are paid for improving quality and lowering costs for a given population of patients with cirrhosis. If done correctly, we believe that such frameworks, once adopted, could help reduce burnout by freeing physicians of the burden of checking boxes in the electronic medical record so that they can devote their energies to managing populations. Conclusion: Value-based payment models for cirrhosis have the potential to benefit patients, physicians, and healthcare insurers.

Economic evaluation of direct-acting antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C.

In 2011, the protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir were approved in the United States and European Union for the treatment of hepatitis C infection. While remarkably effective, the newly approved therapies are also accompanied by additional side effects and considerable costs. Understanding the balance between costs and effectiveness is critical to making decisions about the optimal use of these new agents, especially for health care systems constrained by rising costs. Our goal for this review is to facilitate an understanding of the importance of cost-effectiveness analyses in guiding policy decisions about the use of newly approved drugs as well as future therapies for hepatitis C.

Cost-effectiveness of truncated therapy for hepatitis C based on rapid virologic response.

BACKGROUND: Shortened courses of treatment with pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin for patients with hepatitis C virus infection who experience rapid virologic response can be effective in appropriately selected patients. The cost-effectiveness of truncated therapy is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of response-guided therapy versus standard-duration therapy on the basis of best available evidence. METHODS: We developed a decision model for chronic hepatitis C virus infection representing two treatment strategies: 1) standard-duration therapy with pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin for 48 weeks in patients with genotype 1 or 4 and for 24 weeks in patients with genotype 2 or 3 and 2) truncated therapy (i.e., 50% decrease in treatment duration) in patients with rapid virologic response. Patients for whom truncated therapy failed began standard-duration therapy guided by genotype. We used a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, mean lifetime costs were $46,623 ± $2,483 with standard-duration therapy and $42,354 ± $2,489 with truncated therapy. Mean lifetime quality-adjusted life-years were similar between the groups (17.1 ± 0.7 with standard therapy; 17.2 ± 0.7 with truncated therapy). Across model simulations, the probability of truncated therapy being economically dominant (i.e., both cost saving and more effective) was 78.6%. The results were consistent when we stratified the data by genotype. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the results were sensitive only to changes in treatment efficacy. CONCLUSION: Truncated therapy based on rapid virologic response is likely to be cost saving for treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Cost-effectiveness varied with small changes in relative treatment efficacy.

Colorectal cancer: national and international perspective on the burden of disease and public health impact.

Colorectal cancer is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and throughout the world. The importance of this disease to gastroenterologists cannot be understated, given that screening and surveillance colonoscopy are dominant segments of clinical practice. The United States is the only country in the world where incidence and mortality rates from colorectal cancer are reported to be decreasing significantly, but health disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and survival persist. Health disparities are also evident worldwide, where the impact of this disease is staggering. In fact, rates of cancer are increasing in many parts of the world. Eliminating barriers to cancer screening and treatment could lead to substantial gains in quality and quantity of life and decrease the burden of colorectal cancer on public health. Programmatic and opportunistic screening programs have already had a measurable impact on disease burden, although the optimal screening strategy remains a matter of debate. Screening programs vary throughout the world, and further refinement will require a tailored approach because of differences in politics and fiscal reality among individual countries. Despite the strong impact of colorectal cancer on public health, there is cause for optimism and room for hope.

Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals.

Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released new guidelines on broadcast direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997, the prevalence of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs has increased exponentially. The impact on providers, patients, and the health care system is varied and dynamic, and the rapid changes in the last several years have markedly altered the health care landscape. To continue providing optimal medical care, physicians and other health care providers must be able to manage this influence on their practice, and a more thorough understanding of this phenomenon is an integral step toward this goal. This review will summarize the history of direct-to-consumer drug advertisements and the current regulations governing them. It will summarize the evidence concerning the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising on the public, providers, and the health care system, and conclude with observations regarding the future of direct-to-consumer advertising.