Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on IBD Outcomes Among Vulnerable Patient Populations in a Large Metropolitan Center.

BACKGROUND: With the onset of COVID-19, there were rapid changes in healthcare delivery as remote access became the norm. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in both well-resourced and vulnerable populations. METHODS: Using a mixed methods, observational study design, patients receiving IBD care at a university or a safety-net hospital were identified by the electronic health record. Patient demographics, IBD history, and disease activity were acquired from the electronic health record. IBD-related outcomes were compared from the onset of the pandemic in the United States until December 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic year 1) and compared with outcomes in the previous year. A subset of participants provided their perspective on how changes in healthcare delivery and financial stability impacted their IBD through a standardized questionnaire and semi-structured interview. RESULTS: Data from a total of 1449 participants were captured, 1324 at the tertiary care university hospital and 125 at the safety-net hospital. During COVID-19, there was a decrease in healthcare utilization at both sites. Race/ethnicity and primary language were not associated with IBD-related hospitalizations or admissions. Patients that were employed and those with insurance had a higher number of IBD-related emergency department visits at both the university and safety-net hospitals (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively). Patients who did not speak English were more likely to report challenges using technology with telehealth and difficulty contacting IBD providers. CONCLUSIONS: For IBD populations, during COVID-19, in both hospital settings, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, outpatient surgery, and clinic visits were reduced compared with the year prior. Patients with lower socioeconomic status and limited English proficiency reported facing more challenges with changes to healthcare delivery, healthcare access, and conveying changes in IBD activity. These results highlight the need for payors and providers to specifically attend to those populations most susceptible to these systemic and lasting changes in care delivery and promote greater equity in healthcare.

Effectiveness and Cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care. METHODS: Patients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care. CONCLUSION: Population-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.

Disparities in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence in California: An Update.

BACKGROUND: Given changes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence and the ethnodemographic landscape, we analyzed recent HCC incidence patterns and trends in California. METHODS: Using 47,992 primary, invasive HCC cases diagnosed from 1988 to 2014 from the California Cancer Registry, we calculated age-adjusted incidence rates (IR), annual percent change (APC), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by sex, race/ethnicity, and nativity among Hispanics and Asian ethnic groups. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), all other racial/ethnic groups had higher HCC incidence. Vietnamese had the highest IRs (males: 47.4, 95% CI, 45.3-49.5; females: 14.1, 95% CI, 13.0-15.3). Foreign-born Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese had higher incidence than U.S.-born. The reverse was observed for Hispanic males, whereas no differences by nativity were seen for Hispanic females. IRs increased most for NHWs. Among Asians, male and female Filipinos and Japanese males experienced rate increases, whereas male and female Koreans and Chinese males experienced rate decreases. U.S.-born male and female Hispanics and Japanese had higher APCs than foreign-born, as did Filipino males, whereas Chinese males had a reverse pattern. Annual increases in HCC incidence slowed down in recent years for U.S.-born Hispanic males and females and stabilized among male NHWs and non-Hispanic Blacks. For some Asian groups, early time periods exhibited increasing/stable APCs, whereas later time periods showed decreasing APCs. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant racial/ethnic and nativity differences in HCC IRs and trends. IMPACT: With changing trends, closer surveillance of HCC incidence by disaggregated race/ethnicity and nativity is warranted among Hispanics and Asians.

Race/ethnicity is an independent risk factor for autoimmune hepatitis among the San Francisco underserved.

Although autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is more common in women and affects people of all races/ethnicities, there is currently limited information regarding the relationship between race/ethnicity and AIH, especially in the context of underserved populations. We aim to evaluate the relationship between race/ethnicity and AIH and better characterize its clinical features among different racial groups. We conducted a 15-year retrospective analysis, from January 2002 to June 2017, of patients seen at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFG). Sixty-three AIH patients and 2049 non-AIH controls were eligible for the study. The main predictor of interest was race/ethnicity, and the main outcome of interest was AIH diagnosis; other secondary measures recorded include clinical features such as ALT, bilirubin, and biopsy fibrosis at presentation. In a multivariable model adjusting for age and sex, we found that black (OR 9.6, 95% CI 1.8-178), Latino (OR 25.0, 95% CI 5.3-448), and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) (OR 10.8, 95% CI 2.2-196) race/ethnicity were associated with increased odds of an AIH diagnosis compared to the white reference group. Among people of colour with AIH, there were no significant differences in baseline ALT (p = .45), total bilirubin at presentation (p = .06), fibrosis at presentation (p = .74), and hospitalization (p = .27). Race/ethnicity is an independent risk factor for AIH. The clinical features of AIH did not differ significantly among black, Latino, and API patients.

The San Francisco Cancer Initiative: A Community Effort To Reduce The Population Burden Of Cancer.

The great potential for reducing the cancer burden and cancer disparities through prevention and early detection is unrealized at the population level. A new community-based coalition, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN), focuses on the city and county of San Francisco, where cancer is the leading cause of death. SF CAN is an integrated, cross-sector collaboration launched in November 2016. It brings together the San Francisco Department of Public Health; the University of California, San Francisco; major health systems; and community coalitions to exert collective impact. Its goals are to reduce the burden of five common cancers-breast, lung and other tobacco-related, prostate, colorectal, and liver-for which there are proven methods of prevention and detection, while reducing known disparities. We describe the infrastructure, coalition building, and early progress of this initiative, which may serve as a model for other municipalities.

Inadequate Utilization of Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal FIT Results in an Integrated Safety-Net System.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is contingent on colonoscopy completion in patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Understanding system and patient factors affecting follow-up of abnormal screening tests is essential to optimize care for high-risk cohorts. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in an integrated safety-net system comprised of 11 primary-care clinics and one Gastroenterology referral unit and included patients 50-75 years, with a positive FIT between April 2012 and February 2015. RESULTS: Of the 2,238 patients identified, 1,245 (55.6%) completed their colonoscopy within 1-year of the positive FIT. The median time from positive FIT to colonoscopy was 184 days (interquartile range 140-232). Of the 13% of FIT positive patients not referred to gastroenterology, 49% lacked documentation addressing their abnormal result or counseling on the increased risk of CRC. Of the patients referred but who missed their appointments, 62% lacked documentation following up on the abnormal result in the absence of a completed colonoscopy. FIT positive patients never referred to gastroenterology or who missed their appointment after referrals were more likely to have comorbid conditions and documented illicit substance use compared with patients who completed a colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite access to colonoscopy and a shared electronic health record system, colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT is inadequate within this safety-net system. Inadequate follow-up is in part explained by inappropriate screening, but there is an absence of clear documentation and systematic workflow within both primary care and GI specialty care addressing abnormal FIT results.

Urgent colonoscopy in patients with lower GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is indicated in all hospitalized patients with LGIB, yet the time frame for performing colonoscopy remains unclear. Prior studies of outcomes in urgent versus elective colonoscopy have yielded conflicting results and were often underpowered. Our study objective was to compare several outcomes between urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized for LGIB. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies that compared urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients with LGIB. Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes, and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 10,172 patients in the urgent colonoscopy arm and 14,224 patients in the elective colonoscopy arm. Urgent colonoscopy was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic intervention (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.67). There were no significant differences in bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .92-1.25), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, .65-1.71), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, .74-1.78), transfusion requirement (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .73-1.41), or mortality (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .45-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent colonoscopy appears to be safe and well tolerated, but there is no clear evidence that it alters important clinical outcomes.

Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. CRC incidence and mortality can be reduced through screening. However, in the United States, screening participation remains suboptimal, particularly among underserved populations such as the uninsured, recent immigrants, and racial/ethnic minority groups. Increasing screening rates among underserved populations will reduce the US burden of CRC. In this commentary focusing on underserved populations, we highlight the public health impact of CRC screening, list key challenges to screening the underserved, and review promising approaches to boost screening rates. We identify four key policy and research priorities to increase screening among underserved populations: 1) actively promote the message, "the best test is the one that gets done"; 2) develop and implement methods to identify unscreened individuals within underserved population groups for screening interventions; 3) develop and implement approaches for organized screening delivery; and 4) fund and enhance programs and policies that provide access to screening, diagnostic follow-up, and CRC treatment for underserved populations. This commentary represents the consensus of a diverse group of experts in cancer control and prevention, epidemiology, gastroenterology, and primary care from across the country who formed the Coalition to Boost Screening among the Underserved in the United States. The group was organized and held its first annual working group meeting in conjunction with the World Endoscopy Organization's annual Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee meeting during Digestive Disease Week 2012 in San Diego, California.

A cost-utility analysis of ablative therapy for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recommendations for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) include endoscopic surveillance with esophagectomy for early-stage cancer, although new technologies to ablate dysplasia and metaplasia are available. This study compares the cost utility of ablation with that of endoscopic surveillance strategies. METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to examine a population of patients with BE (mean age 50), with separate analyses for patients with no dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), or high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Strategies compared were no endoscopic surveillance; endoscopic surveillance with ablation for incident dysplasia; immediate ablation followed by endoscopic surveillance in all patients or limited to patients in whom metaplasia persisted; and esophagectomy. Ablation modalities modeled included radiofrequency, argon plasma coagulation, multipolar electrocoagulation, and photodynamic therapy. RESULTS: Endoscopic ablation for patients with HGD could increase life expectancy by 3 quality-adjusted years at an incremental cost of <$6,000 compared with no intervention. Patients with LGD or no dysplasia can also be optimally managed with ablation, but continued surveillance after eradication of metaplasia is expensive. If ablation permanently eradicates >or=28% of LGD or 40% of nondysplastic metaplasia, ablation would be preferred to surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ablation could be the preferred strategy for managing patients with BE with HGD. Ablation might also be preferred in subjects with LGD or no dysplasia, but the cost effectiveness depends on the long-term effectiveness of ablation and whether surveillance endoscopy can be discontinued after successful ablation. As further postablation data become available, the optimal management strategy will be clarified.

Management of obscure occult gastrointestinal bleeding: a cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) allow complete small-bowel examination but consume additional health care resources. A cost-minimization analysis determined the optimal initial management strategy for obscure occult gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). METHODS: We compared 5 strategies: initial small-bowel follow-through, enteroclysis, push enteroscopy (PE), CE, or DBE. Incorporation of multiple tests was allowed with costs taken from a third-party payer perspective. We modeled medically refractory disease with 2 separate model end points in which treatment or definitive diagnosis was necessary and in which visual diagnosis was sufficient to suspend testing. Sensitivity analyses included variations in parameter estimates, Monte Carlo simulation, and structural variations in the model in which DBE was not available as an initial strategy. RESULTS: When treatment or definitive diagnosis was necessary, the optimal strategy was initial DBE at a cost of $3824. An initial CE strategy costs an incremental $440. CE was preferred when DBE exceeded $1849 or when the sensitivity of DBE decreased to less than 68%. If DBE was unavailable as an initial test then CE was preferred to PE unless CE exceeded $1190, capsule retention was greater than 3%, or 64% of lesions were within reach of PE. When visual diagnosis was sufficient, initial CE was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: For OGIB, initial DBE may be the least expensive strategy when treatment or definitive diagnosis is necessary and initial CE may be preferred when visual identification is sufficient. In settings where DBE is not available as an initial test, initial CE may be the preferred strategy.

A cost-identification analysis of screening and surveillance of hepatitis C infection in a prospective cohort of dialysis patients.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends screening and surveillance of dialysis patients for hepatitis C virus (HCV), but there are limited data on the real life performance of confirmatory tests. We performed a cost-identification analysis of CDC recommendations using a large database of dialysis subjects. Screening and surveillance were performed according to CDC guidelines: enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing upon entry then biannual surveillance. All positive EIA tests were confirmed by either polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or radioimmunoblot assay (RIBA). A total of 12,563 patients were tested from 1997 to 2004. By EIA, the prevalence of HCV was 8.4% and annual incidence was 0.96%. The prevalence after confirmation by RIBA and PCR was 5.8% and 4.8%, respectively. The annual incidence of hepatitis C confirmed by RIBA and PCR was 0.13% and 0.084%, respectively. Using Medicare reimbursement, the cost to screen and confirm one case of hepatitis C by RIBA was $372 versus $503 by PCR. However, the cost to identify an incident infection increased to $30,594 by RIBA and $48,622 by PCR. In the sensitivity analysis, the cost of identifying incident HCV infection dropped by 50% when the surveillance interval was extended to 1 year or when seroconversion rates for EIA occurred at 2%. Due to high surveillance cost, further studies are necessary to determine optimal intervals and settings.