RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: No study has explored whether availability of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is adequate and equitable across US children's hospitals. We hypothesized that ERCP availability and utilization differs by geography and patient factors. METHODS: Healthcare encounter data from 2009 to 2019 on children with pancreatic and biliary diseases from the Pediatric Health Information System were analyzed. ERCP availability was defined as treatment at a hospital that performed pediatric ERCP during the year of service. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2019, 37,946 children (88,420 encounters) had a potential pancreatic or biliary indication for ERCP; 7066 ERCPs were performed. The commonest pancreatic diagnoses leading to ERCP were chronic (47.2%) and acute pancreatitis (43.2%); biliary diagnoses were calculus (68.3%) and obstruction (14.8%). No ERCP was available for 25.0% of pancreatic encounters and 8.1% of biliary encounters. In multivariable analysis, children with public insurance, rural residence, or of Black race were less likely to have pancreatic ERCP availability; those with rural residence or Asian race were less likely to have biliary ERCP availability. Black children or those with public insurance were less likely to undergo pancreatic ERCP where available. Among encounters for calculus or obstruction, those of Black race or admitted to hospitals in the West were less likely to undergo ERCP when available. CONCLUSIONS: One-in-four children with pancreatic disorders and one-in-12 with biliary disorders may have limited access to ERCP. We identified racial and geographic disparities in availability and utilization of ERCP. Further studies are needed to understand these differences to ensure equitable care.
Asunto(s)
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Hospitales Pediátricos , Humanos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/estadística & datos numéricos , Niño , Hospitales Pediátricos/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Preescolar , Adolescente , Lactante , Enfermedades Pancreáticas/terapia , Enfermedades Pancreáticas/cirugía , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedades de las Vías Biliares/terapia , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are second-line treatments in pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Pediatric studies comparing the effectiveness of these medications are lacking. Using a registry from ImproveCareNow (ICN), a global research network in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, we compared the effectiveness of UST and VDZ in anti-TNF refractory UC. METHODS: We performed a propensity-score weighted regression analysis to compare corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) at 6 months from starting second-line therapy. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of our findings to different ways of handling missing outcome data. Secondary analyses evaluated alternative proxies of response and infection risk. RESULTS: Our cohort included 262 patients on VDZ and 74 patients on UST. At baseline, the two groups differed on their mean pediatric UC activity index (PUCAI) (p = 0.03) but were otherwise similar. At Month 6, 28.3% of patients on VDZ and 25.8% of those on UST achieved CFCR (p = 0.76). Our primary model showed no difference in CFCR (odds ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.59) (p = 0.54). The time to biologic discontinuation was similar in both groups (hazard ratio: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.76-2.08) (p = 0.36), with the reference group being VDZ, and we found no differences in clinical response, growth parameters, hospitalizations, surgeries, infections, or malignancy risk. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings of similar effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: UST and VDZ are similarly effective for inducing clinical remission in anti-TNF refractory UC in pediatric patients. Providers should consider safety, tolerability, cost, and comorbidities when deciding between these therapies.