Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Durability of Near-Complete Skin Clearance in Patients with Psoriasis Using Systemic Biologic Therapies: Real-World Evidence from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Near-complete skin clearance has become a rapidly achievable treatment goal for patients with psoriasis receiving systemic biologic therapies. However, real-world evidence for durability of near-complete skin clearance and risk factors associated with loss of near-complete skin clearance is limited. METHODS: This study described durability of near-complete skin clearance (≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index from initiation; PASI90) and identified clinical factors or patient characteristics associated with loss of PASI90 among patients with psoriasis from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry (April 2015-August 2021). Included patients had PASI > 5 at biologic initiation and achieved PASI90 at approximately 6 months from initiation (index). A Kaplan-Meier estimate described time to loss of treatment response over 24 months follow-up from index. Proportional hazards regression was used to identify independent predictors of loss of treatment response. RESULTS: This study included 687 patient initiations (instances of patients initiating a biologic). Following achievement of PASI90, treatment response was maintained in more than half of patient initiations (54%). Treatment response was maintained at 6, 12, and 18 months from index in an estimated 73% (95% [confidence interval] CI 70-77%), 60% (95% CI 56-63%), and 50% (95% CI 47-54%) of patient initiations, respectively. Adjusted hazards regression suggested non-White race, full-time employment, greater body weight, concomitant psoriatic arthritis, prior use of biologics, and clinically meaningful skin symptoms were associated with loss of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Among real-world patients with psoriasis who achieved PASI90 with biologic therapy, about one-quarter lost response at 6 months, and half lost response at 18 months. Prior use of a biologic therapy and clinically meaningful skin symptoms at index, including itch and skin pain, were associated with loss of treatment response. Therefore, dermatologists may consider focusing on patient-reported symptoms as part of any intervention designed to reduce the likelihood of loss of response to biologic therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02707341.

Many people with psoriasis are treated with biologic medications that work to improve symptoms associated with psoriasis, including inflammation. These medications can lead to almost clear skin for many people. However, there is limited information available about how long almost clear skin can be maintained with biologic medications, and what predicts who is likely to lose it. To explore these questions, we examined a database of patients with psoriasis (the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry) that records how clear patients' skin is and the medications they take. Out of every 100 patients, 54 maintained almost clear skin and stayed on their original medication for 2 years after first having almost clear skin. Out of every 100 patients, 73, 60, and 50 maintained almost clear skin and remained on their original medication at 6, 12, and 18 months after they had achieved this response. The results indicated that patients who were not White, worked full time, previously used a biologic medication, or had itchy and/or painful skin after they had achieved almost-clear skin were more likely to change their medication and/or no longer have almost-clear skin. These results suggest that dermatologists may consider focusing on patient-reported characteristics when deciding how to treat their patients, to reduce the likelihood that they lose their response to the medication they are prescribed.

Skin Clearance is Associated with Reduced Treatment Failure in Patients with Psoriasis: Real-World Evidence from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Complete and near-complete skin clearance have become achievable treatment goals for patients with psoriasis receiving systemic biologic therapies. However, there is limited real-world evidence regarding the impact of the degree of skin clearance on biologic treatment patterns among these patients. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study assessed the relationship between degree of skin clearance following initiation of a systemic biologic therapy and treatment failure among patients from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry (April 2015-August 2021). Patients had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score > 5 at systemic biologic therapy initiation and ≥ 1 follow-up visit(s) within 15 months of initiation. Treatment failure (discontinuation due to poor response/adverse event; addition of non-biologic therapy) and degree of skin clearance (measured by PASI) were assessed following biologic initiation. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the association between PASI response level and treatment failure over follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 2701 patient initiations from 2516 unique patients with 3846 total visits over follow-up. Over half of the patient initiations (n = 1412; 52.3%) were among patients with PASI >10. Treatment failure occurred in 1.3% of visits at which PASI100 was achieved, while those achieving PASI90 - < 100 and PASI75 - < 90 had treatment failure rates of 3.4% and 3.5%, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, the risk of treatment failure was two to three times higher in the PASI90 - < 100 (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35, 5.02; p = 0.004) and PASI75 < 90 (HR = 2.97; CI 1.58, 5.58; p = 0.001) groups compared to the PASI100 group. The risk of treatment failure was more than 20 times higher in the < PASI75 group versus the PASI100 group (HR = 22.26; CI 13.32, 37.21; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that patients are more likely to remain on a systemic biologic therapy if they achieve near-complete or complete skin clearance, supporting the continued need to target skin clearance as a treatment goal in psoriasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02707341.

Many people with psoriasis are often treated with biologic medications that work to improve symptoms associated with psoriasis, including inflammation. These medications can lead to clear or almost-clear skin for many people. However, there is limited information available about how achieving this goal affects whether patients continue taking their biologic medication or add a new non-biologic medication. The data source for this study was a database of patients with psoriasis (the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry) that records how clear patients' skin is and what medications they take. Over 1 year after starting a biologic medication, approximately 1 out of every 100 patients that achieved clear skin after taking a biologic medication stopped using that medication, and approximately 3 out of every 100 patients with almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication stopped using that medication. Meanwhile, around 20 out of every 100 patients that did not have clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication stopped using that medication. Furthermore, patients who did not have clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication had more than 20 times greater risk of stopping their medication than those who did have clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication. These results suggest that patients are more likely to remain on their biologic medication if they experience clear or almost-clear skin after taking a biologic medication and that patients and their providers should aim for this goal when taking a biologic medication.

Clinical Characteristics of Registry Participants with Psoriatic Arthritis Initiating Guselkumab: An Analysis from the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.

BACKGROUND: The monoclonal antibody guselkumab is the first selective inhibitor of the interleukin-23 p19 subunit approved to treat adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Given its recent approval for active PsA, data describing patients with PsA initiating guselkumab outside of clinical trials are limited. OBJECTIVE: This analysis describes characteristics of patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed PsA initiating guselkumab in the US-based, prospective, observational CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry. METHODS: Demographics, lifestyle/disease characteristics, comorbidities, prior treatment, and disease activity were summarized for patients with PsA initiating guselkumab from registry inception through 30 September, 2021. RESULTS: Of 113 patients initiating guselkumab, the majority were female (63%), obese (67%), had psoriasis (89%), and initiated guselkumab as monotherapy (81%). Common comorbidities were hypertension (32%), depression (30%), and diabetes mellitus (26%). Mean tender (6.8) and swollen (2.0) joint counts, clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA score (19.1), and 57% of participants with ≥ 3% body surface area affected by psoriasis indicated moderate disease activity. Axial involvement was identified in 49% of patients. Median patient-reported pain and fatigue visual analog scale scores (0-100) were 60 and 59, respectively. Prior to guselkumab, 76% of patients had received two or more biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; the last therapy prior to guselkumab was a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in 81% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Registry participants with PsA initiating guselkumab had active peripheral joint and skin disease, with substantial pain and fatigue; a considerable proportion had axial involvement. Future studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guselkumab in this population.

An Unsuccessful Randomized Trial of Percutaneous vs Endoscopic Drainage of Suspected Malignant Hilar Obstruction.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are widely accepted but competing approaches for the management of malignant obstruction at the hilum of the liver. ERCP is favored in the United States on the basis of high success rates for non-hilar indications, the perceived safety and superior tissue sampling capability of ERCP relative to PTBD, and the avoidance of external drains that are undesirable to patients. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the 2 modalities in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma was terminated prematurely because of higher mortality in the PTBD group.1 In contrast, most observational data suggest that PTBD is superior for achieving complete drainage.2-6 Because the preferred procedure remains uncertain, we aimed to compare PTBD and ERCP as the primary intervention in patients with cholestasis due to malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).

Digestive Manifestations in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Development and initial validation of an instrument for video-based assessment of technical skill in ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The accurate measurement of technical skill in ERCP is essential for endoscopic training, quality assurance, and coaching of this procedure. Hypothesizing that technical skill can be measured by analysis of ERCP videos, we aimed to develop and validate a video-based ERCP skill assessment tool. METHODS: Based on review of procedural videos, the task of ERCP was deconstructed into its basic components by an expert panel that developed an initial version of the Bethesda ERCP Skill Assessment Tool (BESAT). Subsequently, 2 modified Delphi panels and 3 validation exercises were conducted with the goal of iteratively refining the tool. Fully crossed generalizability studies investigated the contributions of assessors, ERCP performance, and technical elements to reliability. RESULTS: Twenty-nine technical elements were initially generated from task deconstruction. Ultimately, after iterative refinement, the tool comprised 6 technical elements and 11 subelements. The developmental process achieved consistent improvements in the performance characteristics of the tool with every iteration. For the most recent version of the tool, BESAT-v4, the generalizability coefficient (a reliability index) was .67. Most variance in BESAT scores (43.55%) was attributed to differences in endoscopists' skill, indicating that the tool can reliably differentiate between endoscopists based on video analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Video-based assessment of ERCP skill appears to be feasible with a novel instrument that demonstrates favorable validity evidence. Future steps include determining whether the tool can discriminate between endoscopists of varying experience levels and predict important outcomes in clinical practice.

Correction to: Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Rectal indometacin dose escalation for prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although rectal indometacin 100 mg is effective in reducing the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown, and pancreatitis incidence remains high. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two dose regimens of rectal indometacin on the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial, we enrolled patients from six tertiary medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients were those at high risk for the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) immediately after ERCP to receive either two 50 mg indometacin suppositories and a placebo suppository (standard-dose group) or three 50 mg indometacin suppositories (high-dose group). 4 h after the procedure, patients assigned to the high-dose group received an additional 50 mg indometacin suppository, whereas patients in the standard-dose group received an additional placebo suppository. The randomisation schedule, stratified according to study centre and with no other restrictions, was computer generated by an investigator who was uninvolved in the clinical care of any participants, distributed to the sites, and kept by personnel not directly involved with the study. These same personnel were responsible for packaging the drug and placebo in opaque envelopes. Patients, study personnel, and treating physicians were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome of the study was the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912716, and enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2013, and March 22, 2018, 1037 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either standard-dose (n=515) or high-dose indometacin (n=522). Pancreatitis after ERCP occurred in 141 (14%) of 1037 patients-76 (15%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and 65 (12%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (risk ratio [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 0·87-1·61; p=0·32). We observed 19 adverse events that were potentially attributable to study drug. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 14 (1%) of 1037 patients-six (1%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and eight (2%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (p=0·79). Three (1%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group developed acute kidney injury versus none in the standard-dose group (p=0·25). A non-ST elevation myocardial infarction occurred in the standard-dose indometacin group 2 days after ERCP. A transient ischaemic attack occurred in the high-dose indometacin group 5 days after ERCP. All 19 adverse events, in addition to the 141 patients who developed pancreatitis after ERCP, were considered serious as all required admission to hospital. We observed no allergic reactions or deaths at 30 day follow-up. INTERPRETATION: Dose escalation to rectal indometacin 200 mg did not confer any advantage compared with the standard 100 mg regimen, with pancreatitis incidence remaining high in high-risk patients. Current practice should continue unchanged. Further research should consider the pharmacokinetics of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to determine the optimal timing of their administration to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP. FUNDING: American College of Gastroenterology.

Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). METHODS: The INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded. DISCUSSION: The INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832 . Registered on 1 June 2017.

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. METHODS/DESIGN: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. DISCUSSION: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02476279, registered June 2015.