Transcriptome comparisons of trophoblasts from regenerative cell models with peri-implantation human embryos.

Mechanisms controlling trophoblast proliferation and differentiation during embryo implantation are poorly understood. Human trophoblast stem cells (TSC) and BMP4/A83-01/PD173074-treated pluripotent stem cell-derived trophoblast cells (BAP) are two widely employed, contemporary models to study trophoblast development and function, but how faithfully they mimic early trophoblast cells has not been fully examined. We evaluated the transcriptomes of trophoblast cells from BAP and TSC and directly compared them with those from peri-implantation human embryos during extended embryo culture (EEC) between embryonic day 8 to 12. The BAP and TSC grouped closely with trophoblast cells from EEC within each trophoblast sublineage following dimensional analysis and unsupervised hierarchical clustering. However, subtle differences in transcriptional programs existed within each trophoblast sublineage. We also validated the presence of six genes in peri-implantation human embryos by immunolocalization. Our analysis reveals that both BAP and TSC models have features of peri-implantation trophoblasts, while maintaining minor transcriptomic differences, and thus serve as valuable tools for studying implantation in lieu of human embryos.

Interobserver agreement of current and new proposed endoscopic scores for postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The modified Rutgeerts score (mRS) is widely used for the assessment of endoscopic postoperative recurrence (ePOR) in Crohn's disease (CD) after ileocolic resection to guide therapeutic decisions. To improve the validity and prognostic value of this endoscopic assessment, 2 new scores have been proposed. This study assessed the interobserver agreement of the current score (mRS) and the new endoscopic score for ePOR in CD. METHODS: Sixteen Dutch academic and nonacademic inflammatory bowel disease specialists assessed endoscopic videos (n = 71) of postoperative CD patients (n = 66) retrieved from 9 Dutch centers. Each video was assessed for degree of inflammation by 4 gastroenterologists using the mRS and the new proposed endoscopic score: the REMIND score (separate score of anastomosis and neoterminal ileum) and the updated Rutgeerts score (assessment of lesions at the anastomotic line, ileal inlet, ileal body, and neoterminal ileum). In addition, lesions at the ileal body, ileal inlet, neoterminal ileum, and colonic and/or ileal blind loop were separately assessed. Interobserver agreement was assessed by using Fleiss' weighted kappa. RESULTS: Fleiss' weighted kappa for the mRS was .67 (95% confidence interval [CI], .59-.74). The weighted kappa for the REMIND score was .73 (95% CI, .65-.80) for lesions in the neoterminal ileum and .46 (95% CI, .35-.58) for anastomotic lesions. The weighted kappa for the updated Rutgeerts score was .69 (95% CI, .62-.77). The weighted kappa for lesions in the ileal body, ileal inlet, neoterminal ileum, and colonic and ileal blind loop was .61 (95% CI, .49-.73), .63 (95% CI, .54-.72), .61 (95% CI, .49-.74), .83 (95% CI, .62-1.00) and .68 (95% CI, .46-.89), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver agreement of the mRS is substantial. Similarly, the interobserver agreement is substantial for the updated Rutgeerts score. According to the REMIND score, the interobserver agreement was substantial for lesions in the neoterminal ileum, although only moderate for anastomotic lesions. Because therapeutic decisions in clinical practice are based on these assessments, and these scores are used as outcome measure in clinical studies, further improvement of the interobserver agreement is essential.

Exploratory subgroup identification in the heterogeneous Cox model: A relatively simple procedure.

For survival analysis applications we propose a novel procedure for identifying subgroups with large treatment effects, with focus on subgroups where treatment is potentially detrimental. The approach, termed forest search, is relatively simple and flexible. All-possible subgroups are screened and selected based on hazard ratio thresholds indicative of harm with assessment according to the standard Cox model. By reversing the role of treatment one can seek to identify substantial benefit. We apply a splitting consistency criteria to identify a subgroup considered "maximally consistent with harm." The type-1 error and power for subgroup identification can be quickly approximated by numerical integration. To aid inference we describe a bootstrap bias-corrected Cox model estimator with variance estimated by a Jacknife approximation. We provide a detailed evaluation of operating characteristics in simulations and compare to virtual twins and generalized random forests where we find the proposal to have favorable performance. In particular, in our simulation setting, we find the proposed approach favorably controls the type-1 error for falsely identifying heterogeneity with higher power and classification accuracy for substantial heterogeneous effects. Two real data applications are provided for publicly available datasets from a clinical trial in oncology, and HIV.

High refill-adherence to adalimumab is associated with low disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

PURPOSE: Adalimumab has evolved to one of the more affordable first-line biologics for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), since its patent expired. However, poor adherence to adalimumab is a concern and may limit its effectiveness. It is plausible that good adherence improves treatment outcomes in IBD patients, but evidence is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess whether high refill-adherence (medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥ 80%) to adalimumab is associated with less active disease in IBD patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the MPR was used to assess refill-adherence of IBD patients using adalimumab. Disease activity was defined as a composite endpoint determined by endoscopy findings, laboratory results, validated questionnaires and clinical assessment by a gastroenterologist. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between high refill-adherence (MPR ≥ 80%) and disease activity. RESULTS: IBD was in remission in 72 of the 113 included patients and 41 had active disease at the time of the most recent prescription. Out of the patients who were in remission, 86.1% were adherent vs. 75.6% in patients with active disease. High refill-adherence was significantly associated with lower odds of active disease after adjustment for confounders: adjusted odds ratio 0.297, 95% confidence interval 0.099-0.892. CONCLUSION: High refill-adherence to adalimumab therapy was associated with less active disease in IBD patients. Our results confirm the relevance of good adherence to adalimumab for achieving optimal treatment results, which may limit the need for switching to more expensive biologics.

A Prediction Model for Successful Increase of Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Patients with Crohn's Disease: Secondary Analysis of the Pragmatic Open-Label Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority LADI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the pragmatic open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority LADI trial we showed that increasing adalimumab (ADA) dose intervals was non-inferior to conventional dosing for persistent flares in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in clinical and biochemical remission. AIMS: To develop a prediction model to identify patients who can successfully increase their ADA dose interval based on secondary analysis of trial data. METHODS: Patients in the intervention group of the LADI trial increased ADA intervals to 3 and then to 4 weeks. The dose interval increase was defined as successful when patients had no persistent flare (> 8 weeks), no intervention-related severe adverse events, no rescue medication use during the study, and were on an increased dose interval while in clinical and biochemical remission at week 48. Prediction models were based on logistic regression with relaxed LASSO. Models were internally validated using bootstrap optimism correction. RESULTS: We included 109 patients, of which 60.6% successfully increased their dose interval. Patients that were active smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.90), had previous CD-related intra-abdominal surgeries (OR 0.85), proximal small bowel disease (OR 0.92), an increased Harvey-Bradshaw Index (OR 0.99) or increased faecal calprotectin (OR 0.997) were less likely to successfully increase their dose interval. The model had fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.63) and net benefit analysis showed that the model could be used to select patients who could increase their dose interval. CONCLUSION: The final prediction model seems promising to select patients who could successfully increase their ADA dose interval. The model should be validated externally before it may be applied in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Is inadequate risk stratification diluting hazard ratio estimates in randomized clinical trials?

In randomized clinical trials, analyses of time-to-event data without risk stratification, or with stratification based on pre-selected factors revealed at the end of the trial to be at most weakly associated with risk, are quite common. We caution that such analyses are likely delivering hazard ratio estimates that unwittingly dilute the evidence of benefit for the test relative to the control treatment. To make our case, first, we use a hypothetical scenario to contrast risk-unstratified and risk-stratified hazard ratios. Thereafter, we draw attention to the previously published 5-step stratified testing and amalgamation routine (5-STAR) approach in which a pre-specified treatment-blinded algorithm is applied to survival times from the trial to partition patients into well-separated risk strata using baseline covariates determined to be jointly strongly prognostic for event risk. After treatment unblinding, a treatment comparison is done within each risk stratum and stratum-level results are averaged for overall inference. For illustration, we use 5-STAR to reanalyze data for the primary and key secondary time-to-event endpoints from three published cardiovascular outcomes trials. The results show that the 5-STAR estimate is typically smaller (i.e. more in favor of the test treatment) than the originally reported (traditional) estimate. This is not surprising because 5-STAR mitigates the presumed dilution bias in the traditional hazard ratio estimate caused by no or inadequate risk stratification, as evidenced by two detailed examples. Pre-selection of stratification factors at the trial design stage to achieve adequate risk stratification for the analysis will often be challenging. In such settings, an objective risk stratification approach such as 5-STAR, which is partly aligned with guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration on covariate-adjustment in clinical trials, is worthy of consideration.

Analysis of composite time-to-event endpoints in cardiovascular outcome trials.

Composite time-to-event endpoints are commonly used in cardiovascular outcome trials. For example, the IMPROVE-IT trial comparing ezetimibe+simvastatin to placebo+simvastatin in 18,144 patients with acute coronary syndrome used a primary composite endpoint with five component outcomes: (1) cardiovascular death, (2) non-fatal stroke, (3) non-fatal myocardial infarction, (4) coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization, and (5) unstable angina requiring hospitalization. In such settings, the traditional analysis compares treatments using the observed time to the occurrence of the first (i.e. earliest) component outcome for each patient. This approach ignores information for subsequent outcome(s), possibly leading to reduced power to demonstrate the benefit of the test versus the control treatment. We use real data examples and simulations to contrast the traditional approach with several alternative approaches that use data for all the intra-patient component outcomes, not just the first.

The National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS): From inception to widespread coverage, 2020-2022, United States.

Wastewater surveillance is a valuable tool that can be used to track infectious diseases in a community. In September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) to coordinate and build the nation's capacity to detect and quantify concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in U.S. wastewater. This is the first surveillance summary of NWSS, covering September 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022. Through partnerships with state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments, NWSS became a national surveillance platform that can be readily expanded and adapted to meet changing public health needs. Beginning with 209 sampling sites in September 2020, NWSS rapidly expanded to >1500 sites by December 2022, covering ≈47 % of the U.S. population. As of December 2022, >152,000 unique wastewater samples have been collected by NWSS partners, primarily from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). WWTPs participating in NWSS tend to be larger than the average U.S. WWTP and serve more populated communities. In December 2022, ≈8 % of the nearly 16,000 U.S. WWTPs were participating in NWSS. NWSS partners used a variety of methods for sampling and testing wastewater samples; however, progress is being made to standardize these methods. In July 2021, NWSS partners started submitting SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing data to NWSS. In October 2022, NWSS expanded to monkeypox virus testing, with plans to include additional infectious disease targets in the future. Through the rapid implementation and expansion of NWSS, important lessons have been learned. Wastewater surveillance programs should consider both surge and long-term capacities when developing an implementation plan, and early standardization of sampling and testing methods is important to facilitate data comparisons across sites. NWSS has proven to be a flexible and sustainable surveillance system that will continue to be a useful complement to case-based surveillance for guiding public health action.

Variation Between Hospitals in Outcomes and Costs of IBD Care: Results From the IBD Value Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on variation in outcomes and costs of the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can be used to identify areas for cost and quality improvement. It can also help healthcare providers learn from each other and strive for equity in care. We aimed to assess the variation in outcomes and costs of IBD care between hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a 12-month cohort study in 8 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with IBD who were treated with biologics and new small molecules were included. The percentage of variation in outcomes (following the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set) and costs attributable to the treating hospital were analyzed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from case mix-adjusted (generalized) linear mixed models. RESULTS: We included 1010 patients (median age 45 years, 55% female). Clinicians reported high remission rates (83%), while patient-reported rates were lower (40%). During the 12-month follow-up, 5.2% of patients used prednisolone for more than 3 months. Hospital costs (outpatient, inpatient, and medication costs) were substantial (median: €8323 per 6 months), mainly attributed to advanced therapies (€6611). Most of the variation in outcomes and costs among patients could not be attributed to the treating hospitals, with ICCs typically between 0% and 2%. Instead, patient-level characteristics, often with ICCs above 50%, accounted for these variations. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in outcomes and costs cannot be used to differentiate between hospitals for quality of care. Future quality improvement initiatives should look at differences in structure and process measures of care and implement patient-level interventions to improve quality of IBD care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8276.

Variation in outcomes and costs cannot be used to differentiate between hospitals for quality of inflammatory bowel disease care. Future quality improvement initiatives should look at differences in structure and process measures and implement patient-level interventions to improve quality of inflammatory bowel disease care.

Health State Questionnaires Deployed in Ulcerative Colitis Patients: The Medical, Psychological, and Economic Perspective.

Background and Aims: To determine how the health state of ulcerative colitis patients is impacted by their disease, different health state questionnaires are deployed. This study examines to what extent these health state questionnaires determine the same underlying health state concept and to what extent the complementary use of the health state questionnaires has added value for physicians. Methods: In total, 307 patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional multicenter cohort study. Medical, psychological, economic, and composite health state questionnaires were administered to determine reliability, convergent validity, and explained variance. Reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha. Convergent validity was measured using Spearman's correlation coefficients. Explained variance was interpreted using R-squared coefficients. Results: All questionnaires can be considered reliable. The medical, psychological, and economic health state questionnaires show weak to moderate convergent validity with each other. The medical, psychological, and economic health state questionnaires also explain limited variance in each other's outcomes. The composite health state questionnaire shows moderate to strong convergent validity with the other health state questionnaires. The composite health state questionnaire further explains considerable variance in the outcomes of the other health state questionnaires. Conclusion: Deploying divergent medical, psychological, and economic health state questionnaires may have added value as they provide a multiperspective holistic insight into patients' health states. Deploying the composite health state questionnaire combined with other health state questionnaires may have added value as it provides additional understanding of their outcomes. Deploying an independent psychological health state questionnaire may have added value as it shows particularly limited convergent validity and explained variance regarding other health state questionnaires.