Delivery of Outpatient Cirrhosis Care Through Tele-Visit Is Not Associated With Increased Mortality as Compared With Traditional In-Person Visits.

INTRODUCTION: Providers and patients have expressed concern that care provided through telehealth results in poorer outcomes than traditional in-person care. On the contrary, we hypothesized that patients with cirrhosis engaging in video/phone-based outpatient gastroenterology/hepatology tele-visits do not differ in mortality from those receiving in-person outpatient clinic visits. METHODS: This was a retrospective, case-control study using Veterans Health Administration administrative data of veterans with a cirrhosis diagnosis. Cases were patients who died between April 2021 and July 2022 and had a cirrhosis diagnosis for ≥1 year before death. For each case, a control was randomly selected from the pool of patients alive on the date of death of the case (index date) and matched on age, average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, and number of gastroenterology/hepatology clinic visits in the prior year. Primary exposure variable was % tele-visits (video/phone) out of total visits in the year before the index date, scaled in 10% increments. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the association between mortality and % tele-visits. A secondary analysis matched on electronic Child-Turcotte-Pugh score rather than Model for End-Stage Liver Disease. RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred thirty-three cases were identified and matched with 2,933 controls. After adjusting for covariates, tele-visit-based outpatient care was associated with a small reduction in mortality (odds ratio TH = 0.95, 95% confidence interval = 0.94-0.97). Matching on electronic Child-Turcotte-Pugh score did not change the results. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that outpatient cirrhosis care by tele-visit is associated with outcomes no worse than traditional in-person visits. This should reassure providers who hesitate to provide virtual care to patients with cirrhosis due to concerns for poorer outcomes.

Feasibility and acceptability of patient- and clinician-level antithrombotic stewardship interventions to reduce gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin (Anticoagulation with Enhanced Gastrointestinal Safety): a factorial randomized controlled pilot trial.

Background: Overuse of antiplatelet therapy and underuse of gastroprotection contribute to preventable bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants. Objectives: (1) Determine the feasibility of a factorial trial testing patient activation and clinician outreach to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk in patients prescribed warfarin-antiplatelet therapy without proton pump inhibitor gastroprotection and (2) assess intervention acceptability. Methods: Pragmatic 2 × 2 factorial cluster-randomized controlled pilot comparing (1) a patient activation booklet vs usual care and (2) clinician notification vs clinician notification plus nurse facilitation was performed. The primary feasibility outcome was percentage of patients completing a structured telephone assessment after 5 weeks. Exploratory outcomes, including effectiveness, were evaluated using chart review, surveys, and semistructured interviews. Results: Among 47 eligible patients, 35/47 (74.5%; 95% CI, 58.6%-85.7%) met the feasibility outcome. In the subset confirmed to be high risk for upper GI bleeding, 11/29 (37.9%; 95% CI, 16.9%-64.7%) made a medication change, without differences between intervention arms. In interviews, few patients reported reviewing the activation booklet; barriers included underestimating GI bleeding risk, misunderstanding the booklet's purpose, and receiving excessive health communication materials. Clinicians responded to notification messages for 24/47 patients (51.1%; 95% CI, 26.4%-75.4%), which was lower for surgeons than nonsurgeons (22.7% vs 76.0%). Medical specialists but not surgeons viewed clinician notification as acceptable. Conclusion: The proposed trial design and outcome ascertainment strategy were feasible, but the patient activation intervention is unlikely to be effective as designed. While clinician notification appears promising, it may not be acceptable to surgeons, findings which support further refinement and testing of a clinician notification intervention.

Remote Between Visit Monitoring in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care: A Qualitative Study of CAPTURE-IBD Participants and Care Team Members.

Introduction: We recently showed that CAPTURE-inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-a care coordination intervention comprised of routine remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and a care coordinator-triggered care pathway-was more effective at reducing symptom burden for patients with IBD compared to usual care. We aimed to understand how patients and care team providers experienced the intervention and evaluate purported mechanisms of action to plan for future implementation. Methods: In this study, 205 patients were randomized to CAPTURE-IBD (n = 100) or usual care(n = 105). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 of the 100 participants in the CAPTURE-IBD arm and 5 care team providers to achieve thematic saturation. We used qualitative rapid analysis to generate a broad understanding of experiences, perceived impact, the coordinator role, and suggested improvements. Results: Findings highlight that the intervention was acceptable and user-friendly, despite concerns regarding increased nursing workload. Both participants and care team providers perceived the intervention as valuable in supporting symptom monitoring, psychosocial care, and between-visit action plans to improve IBD care and health outcomes. However, few participants leveraged the care coordinator as intended. Finally, participants reported that the intervention could be better tailored to capture day-to-day symptom changes and to meet the needs of patients with specific comorbid conditions (eg, ostomies). Conclusions: Remote PRO monitoring is acceptable and may be valuable in improving care management, promoting tight control, and supporting whole health in IBD. Future efforts should focus on testing and implementing refined versions of CAPTURE-IBD tailored to different clinical settings.

Impact of large scale, multicomponent intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor overuse in integrated healthcare system: difference-in-difference study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how a large scale, multicomponent, pharmacy based intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse affected prescribing patterns, healthcare utilization, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference study. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, in which one regional network implemented the overuse intervention and all 17 others served as controls. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals receiving primary care from 2009 to 2019. INTERVENTION: Limits on PPI refills for patients without a documented indication for long term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not recently filled, facilitated electronic prescribing of H2 receptor antagonists, and education for patients and clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled a PPI prescription per 6 months. Secondary outcomes included percentage of days PPI gastroprotection was prescribed in patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, percentage of patients who filled either a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription, hospital admission for acid peptic disease in older adults appropriate for PPI gastroprotection, primary care visits for an upper gastrointestinal diagnosis, upper endoscopies, and PPI associated clinical conditions. RESULTS: The number of patients analyzed per interval ranged from 192 607 to 250 349 in intervention sites and from 3 775 953 to 4 360 868 in control sites, with 26% of patients receiving PPIs before the intervention. The intervention was associated with an absolute reduction of 7.3% (95% confidence interval -7.6% to -7.0%) in patients who filled PPI prescriptions, an absolute reduction of 11.3% (-12.0% to -10.5%) in PPI use among patients appropriate for gastroprotection, and an absolute reduction of 5.72% (-6.08% to -5.36%) in patients who filled a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription. No increases were seen in primary care visits for upper gastrointestinal diagnoses, upper endoscopies, or hospital admissions for acid peptic disease in older patients appropriate for gastroprotection. No clinically significant changes were seen in any PPI associated clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent intervention was associated with reduced PPI use overall but also in patients appropriate for gastroprotection, with minimal evidence of either clinical benefits or harms.

Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in US Outpatient Visits.

Antisecretory medications, primarily proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), have proven effective in reducing upper gastrointestinal toxicities, including upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin, which are among the most commonly used medications in the United States.1 Accordingly, professional guidance recommends PPIs for patients at high risk for UGIB.2-4 However, little is known about trends in use of antisecretory medications for gastrointestinal prophylaxis ("gastroprotection"). Herein, we examined contemporary use and prescribing of antisecretory medications in visits by patients at high risk for UGIB, relative to visits by patients diagnosed with acid-related disorders.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Hospitalizations Are Similar for Patients Receiving Televisit-Delivered Outpatient Care and Those Receiving Traditional In-Person Care.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic resulted in widespread expansion of telehealth. However, there are concerns that telehealth-delivered outpatient care may limit opportunities for managing complications and preventing hospitalizations for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the association between outpatient IBD care delivered through televisit (video or phone) and IBD-related hospitalizations. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of patients with IBD who had an IBD-related index hospitalization between April 2021 and July 2022 and received their care in the Veterans Health Administration. We matched these hospitalized patients to controls who were not hospitalized based on age, sex, race, Charlson comorbidity index, IBD type, IBD-related emergency department use, IBD-related hospitalizations, and outpatient gastroenterology visits in the preceding year. The variable of interest was the percentage of total clinic visits delivered through televisit in the year before the index hospitalization. We compared the risk of IBD-related hospitalization by exposure to televisit-delivered care using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 534 patients with an IBD-related hospitalization and 534 matched controls without an IBD-related hospitalization during the study period. Patients with IBD with a higher percentage of televisit-delivered (vs in-person) outpatient care were less likely to be hospitalized during the study period (for every 10% increase in televisit use, odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.00; P = 0.03). DISCUSSION: Televisit-delivered outpatient IBD care is not associated with higher risk of IBD-related hospitalization. These findings may reassure clinicians that televisit-delivered outpatient care is appropriate for patients with complex chronic diseases such as IBD.