Provider Specialization in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Quality of Care and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is complex and variation in care has been well-documented. However, the drivers of practice variation remain unexplored. We examined variation based on the treating gastroenterologist's IBD focus (proportion of outpatient visits for IBD). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort of newly diagnosed patients with IBD using data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (2000-2020). The exposure variable was whether the treating gastroenterologist had an IBD focus (>90th percentile of IBD visits/total outpatient visits). We used adjusted regression models to evaluate associations between provider IBD focus and process measures (use of mesalamine, corticosteroid, biologic, and narcotic medications and endoscopic or radiographic imaging) and clinical outcomes (time to IBD-related hospitalization and bowel resection surgery). We tested for change in treatment patterns over time by including an interaction term for study era (2004-2012 vs 2013-2020). RESULTS: The study included 772 children treated by 493 providers and 2864 adults treated by 2076 providers. In children, none of the associations between provider focus and process or outcome measures were significant. In adults, care from an IBD-focused provider was associated with more use of biologics, combination therapy, and imaging and endoscopy, and less mesalamine use for Crohn's disease (P < .05 for all comparisons) but not with other process measures. Biologics were prescribed more frequently and narcotics less frequently during the later era (P < .05 for both). Hospitalization and surgery rates were not associated with IBD focus or era. CONCLUSIONS: IBD care for adults varies by provider specialization. Given the evolving complexity, novel methods may be needed to standardize care.

Pediatric Medical Subspecialist Use in Outpatient Settings.

Importance: A first step toward understanding whether pediatric medical subspecialists are meeting the needs of the nation's children is describing rates of use and trends over time. Objectives: To quantify rates of outpatient pediatric medical subspecialty use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study of annual subspecialist use examined 3 complementary data sources: electronic health records from PEDSnet (8 large academic medical centers [January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021]); administrative data from the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD) (14 commercial health plans [January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2021]); and administrative data from the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) (44 state Medicaid programs [January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019]). Annual denominators included 493 628 to 858 551 patients younger than 21 years with a general pediatric visit in PEDSnet; 5 million beneficiaries younger than 21 years enrolled for at least 6 months in HIRD; and 35 million Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiaries younger than 19 years enrolled for any amount of time in T-MSIS. Exposure: Calendar year and type of medical subspecialty. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual number of children with at least 1 completed visit to any pediatric medical subspecialist in an outpatient setting per population. Use rates excluded visits in emergency department or inpatient settings. Results: Among the study population, the proportion of girls was 51.0% for PEDSnet, 51.1% for HIRD, and 49.3% for T-MSIS; the proportion of boys was 49.0% for PEDSnet, 48.9% for HIRD, and 50.7% for T-MSIS. The proportion of visits among children younger than 5 years was 37.4% for PEDSnet, 20.9% for HIRD, and 26.2% for T-MSIS; most patients were non-Hispanic Black (29.7% for PEDSnet and 26.1% for T-MSIS) or non-Hispanic White (44.9% for PEDSnet and 43.2% for T-MSIS). Annual rates for PEDSnet ranged from 18.0% to 21.3%, which were higher than rates for HIRD (range, 7.9%-10.4%) and T-MSIS (range, 7.6%-8.6%). Subspecialist use increased in the HIRD commercial health plans (annual relative increase of 2.4% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.1%]), but rates were essentially flat in the other data sources (PEDSnet, -0.2% [95% CI, -1.1% to 0.7%]; T-MSIS, -0.7% [95% CI, -6.5% to 5.5%]). The flat PEDSnet growth reflects a balance between annual use increases among those with commercial insurance (1.2% [95% CI, 0.3%-2.1%]) and decreases in use among those with Medicaid (-0.9% [95% CI, -1.6% to -0.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that among children, 8.6% of Medicaid beneficiaries, 10.4% of those with commercial insurance, and 21.3% of those whose primary care is received in academic health systems use pediatric medical subspecialty care each year. There was a small increase in rates of subspecialty use among children with commercial but not Medicaid insurance. These data may help launch innovations in the primary-specialty care interface.

Risk of Anaphylaxis Among New Users of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess risk of anaphylaxis among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are initiating therapy with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), with a focus on those starting lixisenatide therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in three large, U.S. claims databases (2017-2021). Adult (aged ≥18 years) new users of a GLP-1 RA who had type 2 diabetes mellitus and ≥6 months enrollment in the database before GLP-1 RA initiation (start of follow-up) were included. GLP-1 RAs evaluated were lixisenatide, an insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (FRC), exenatide, liraglutide or insulin degludec/liraglutide FRC, dulaglutide, and semaglutide (injectable and oral). The first anaphylaxis event during follow-up was identified using a validated algorithm. Incidence rates (IRs) and 95% CIs were calculated within each medication cohort. The unadjusted IR ratio (IRR) comparing anaphylaxis rates in the lixisenatide cohort with all other GLP-1 RAs combined was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS: There were 696,089 new users with 456,612 person-years of exposure to GLP-1 RAs. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and use of other prescription medications in the 6 months before the index date were similar across medication cohorts. IRs (95% CIs) per 10,000 person-years were 1.0 (0.0-5.6) for lixisenatide, 6.0 (3.6-9.4) for exenatide, 5.1 (3.7-7.0) for liraglutide, 3.9 (3.1-4.8) for dulaglutide, and 3.6 (2.6-4.9) for semaglutide. The IRR (95% CI) for the anaphylaxis rate for the lixisenatide cohort compared with the pooled other GLP-1 RA cohort was 0.24 (0.01-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is rare with GLP-1 RAs. Lixisenatide is unlikely to confer higher risk of anaphylaxis than other GLP-1 RAs.