Utilization of Treat-to-Target Monitoring Colonoscopy After Treatment Initiation in the US-Based Study of a Prospective Adult Research Cohort With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic healing has been associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is a recommended target for treatment. Evidence is limited regarding real-world uptake and patterns of treat-to-target monitoring to assess endoscopic healing after treatment initiation. We aimed to estimate the proportion of patients in the Study of a Prospective Adult Research Cohort with IBD (SPARC IBD) who received colonoscopy in the 3-15 months after starting a new IBD treatment. METHODS: We identified SPARC IBD patients who initiated a new biologic (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab) or tofacitinib. We estimated the proportion of patients who received colonoscopies in the 3-15 months after IBD treatment initiation and described use by patient subgroups. RESULTS: Among 1,708 eligible initiations from 2017 to 2022, the most common medications were ustekinumab (32%), infliximab (22%), vedolizumab (20%), and adalimumab (16%). The median patient age was 38 years, with 66% Crohn's disease; 55% were female, and 12% were non-White. In the 3-15 months after medication initiation, 49.3% (95% confidence interval 46.2%-52.5%) of initiations were followed by a colonoscopy. Colonoscopy use was similar between ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, but was higher among male patients, those older than 40 years, and those who received colonoscopy within 3 months of initiation. Colonoscopy use varied between study sites, from 26.6% (15.0%-38.3%) to 63.2% (54.5%-72.0%). DISCUSSION: Approximately half of SPARC IBD patients received colonoscopy in the 3-15 months after initiation to a new IBD treatment, suggesting a low uptake of treat-to-target colonoscopy for the assessment of mucosal healing in real-world clinical practice. The variation in colonoscopy use between study sites suggests a lack of consensus and a need for more robust evidence around whether or not the practice of routine monitoring colonoscopy is associated with improved patient outcomes.

Utilization of Colonoscopy Following Treatment Initiation in U.S. Commercially Insured Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease, 2013-2019.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of mucosal healing with colonoscopy is recommended for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management; however, little is known about real-world use of treat-to-target monitoring following IBD treatment initiation. We aimed to estimate the proportion of U.S. commercially insured IBD patients who receive colonoscopy in the 3 to 15 months after initiating treatment. METHODS: We identified IBD patients, 18 to 64 years of age, in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database as those with ≥3 IBD diagnoses prior to initiation of biologic, small molecule, or immunomodulatory treatment. We excluded patients with prior colectomy and with rheumatologic and other indications for these therapies. Colonoscopies were identified using International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision, International Classification of Diseases-Tenth Revision, and Current Procedural Terminology procedure codes. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the proportion of newly treated IBD patients who received colonoscopy in the 3 to 6 months, 3 to 12 months, and 3 to 15 months following treatment initiation, and stratified trends by year, patient age and sex, and region. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2019, we identified 39 734 initiators of IBD medications (51.9% female, mean age 39.4 years). We observed similar colonoscopy incidence among ulcerative colitis patients (3-6 months: 14.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.6%-14.8%]; 3-12 months: 37.7% [95% CI, 36.8%-38.6%]; 3-15 months: 46.1% [95% CI, 45.2%-47.1%]) and Crohn's disease patients (3-6 months: 11.2% [95% CI, 10.8%-11.6%]; 3-12 months: 32.2% [95% CI, 31.5%-32.9%]; 3-15 months: CD: 40.1% [95% CI, 39.3%-40.8%]). Overall colonoscopy use was slightly higher among women, patients in the Northeast, and those initiating newer biologic therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of newly treated IBD patients underwent colonoscopy within 3 to 15 months of initiating new treatment, suggesting low uptake of treat-to-target endoscopic disease monitoring in real-world practice.

Among 39 734 newly treated, commercially insured inflammatory bowel disease patients in the United States, fewer than half (42%) received colonoscopy in the 3 to 15 months following treatment initiation, suggesting low uptake of STRIDE (Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease)-recommended treat-to-target endoscopic disease activity monitoring in real-world practice.

Leveraging auxiliary data to improve precision in inverse probability-weighted analyses.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate improvements in the precision of inverse probability-weighted estimators by use of auxiliary variables, i.e., determinants of the outcome that are independent of treatment, missingness or selection. METHODS: First with simulated data, and then with public data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), we estimated the mean of a continuous outcome using inverse probability weights to account for informative missingness. We assessed gains in precision resulting from the inclusion of auxiliary variables in the model for the weights. We compared the performance of robust and nonparametric bootstrap variance estimators in this setting. RESULTS: We found that the inclusion of auxiliary variables reduced the empirical variance of inverse probability-weighted estimators. However, that reduction was not captured in standard errors computed using the robust variance estimator, which is widely used in weighted analyses due to the non-independence of weighted observations. In contrast, a nonparametric bootstrap estimator properly captured the precision gain. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologists can leverage auxiliary data to improve the precision of weighted estimators by using bootstrap variance estimation, or a closed-form variance estimator that properly accounts for the estimation of the weights, in place of the standard robust variance estimator.

Drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with COVID-19: a disproportionality analysis of U.S. food and drug administration adverse event reporting system (FAERS) data.

Background Liver injury has been documented independently in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Objective to investigate the drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir among the patients with COVID-19. Methods We conducted a disproportionality analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between 2020Q1 and 2021Q1 to evaluate the association between lopinavir-ritonavir and risk of drug-induced liver injury (or severe drug-induced liver injury) and calculated their reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 3,425 cases of drug-induced liver injury were reported in 19,782 patients with COVID-19. The ROR for drug-induced liver injury was 2.99 (2.59-3.46), 3.16 (2.68-3.73), and 5.39 (4.63-6.26) when comparing lopinavir-ritonavir with all other drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine only, and remdesivir, respectively. For severe drug-induced liver injury, RORs for lopinavir-ritonavir provided evidence of an association compared with all other drugs (3.98; 3.15-5.05), compared with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine only (5.33; 4.09-6.94), and compared with remdesivir (3.85; 3.03-4.89). Conclusions In the FAERS, we observed a disproportional signal for drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

Newer second-line glucose-lowering drugs versus thiazolidinediones on cirrhosis risk among older US adult patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) accelerates progression of chronic liver disease to cirrhosis, yet the effects of most glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) on cirrhosis risk in T2D are unknown. To address this gap, we compared cirrhosis risk following initiation of newer second-line GLDs vs. thiazolidinediones (TZDs), which improve histology in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the US Medicare Fee-for-Service database (2007-2015) and an active comparator, new-user design, we estimated crude incidence rates (IRs) and propensity-score adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for incident cirrhosis, comparing newer GLDs (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA), and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)) vs. TZDs. RESULTS: Among 239,549 total initiators, we observed 318, 151, and < 30 cirrhosis events when comparing DPP4i vs. TZD, GLP1RA vs. TZD, and SGLT2i vs. TZD, respectively. IRs ranged from 1.7 [95% CI, 0.8-3.6] to 3.6 [2.5-5.2] events per 1000 person-years. Point aHR estimates for cirrhosis were elevated among newer GLD initiators vs. TZD (DPP4i: 1.15 [0.89-1.50]; GLP1RA: 1.34 [0.82-2.20]; SGLT2i: 1.16, [0.44-3.08]), although estimates were imprecise due to short durations of drug exposure. CONCLUSIONS: We observed mildly elevated cirrhosis risk with newer GLDs vs. TZD; however, uncertainty remains due to imprecise and statistically non-significant effect estimates.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Rising Mortality From Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease in the United States in the 21st Century.

OBJECTIVES: In contrast with other developed nations, life expectancy is decreasing in the United States, in part due to increasing mortality from alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD). Up-to-date estimates of ALD mortality are necessary for setting public health priorities to reverse this concerning trend. We therefore aimed to assess current (2017) estimates of ALD mortality and temporal trends from 1999 to 2017. METHODS: Using national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we analyzed stratified ALD mortality rates between 1999 and 2017. We determined the age-adjusted death rates, stratified by sex and categorized by age, race/ethnicity, urbanization, and census region. We also identified statistically significant changes in the annual rate difference (ARD), annual percentage change (APC), and average APC in ALD mortality. RESULTS: In 2017, mortality from ALD was higher than any other year since 1999 with age-adjusted rates of 13.1 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.9-13.3) in men and 5.6 per 100,000 (95% CI 5.4-5.7) in women. Mortality was highest among men and women who were middle aged, Native American, and from rural areas. Since 2006, ALD mortality has increased in almost every age group and race with the exception of non-Hispanic black men. Absolute increases in mortality rates have been particularly pronounced in Native American women (2005-2017 ARD 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9), non-Hispanic/white men (2006-2017 ARD 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.4), and non-Hispanic/white women (2013-2017 ARD 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5). DISCUSSION: Mortality from ALD is increasing over time in most demographic groups. Increased effort is needed to develop targeted public health strategies to address high and increasing ALD mortality.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors and Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real-world Evidence in U.S. Adults.

OBJECTIVE: A recent study raises concerns that dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) are associated with increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We evaluated the association between new use of DPP4i and IBD risk compared with other second-line antihyperglycemics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We implemented an active-comparator, new-user cohort design using two U.S. administrative claims databases for commercially insured (MarketScan) and older adult (Medicare fee-for-service, 20% random sample) patients from January 2007 to December 2016. We identified patients, aged ≥18 years, who initiated DPP4i versus sulfonylureas (SUs) or initiated DPP4i versus thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and were without prior diagnosis, treatment, or procedure for IBD. The primary outcome was incident IBD, defined by IBD diagnosis preceded by colonoscopy and biopsy and followed by IBD treatment. We performed propensity score weighting to control for measured baseline confounding, estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs [95% CI]) using weighted Cox proportional hazards models, and used random-effects meta-analysis models to pool aHRs across cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 895,747 eligible patients initiating DPP4i, SU, or TZD; IBD incidence rates ranged from 11.6 to 32.3/100,000 person-years. Over a median treatment duration of 1.09-1.69 years, DPP4i were not associated with increased IBD risk across comparisons. The pooled aHRs for IBD were 0.82 (95% CI 0.41-1.61) when comparing DPP4i (n = 161,612) to SU (n = 310,550) and 0.76 (0.46-1.26) when comparing DPP4i (n = 205,570) to TZD (n = 87,543). CONCLUSIONS: Our population-based cohort study of U.S. adults with diabetes suggests that short-term DPP4i treatment does not increase IBD risk.

Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Confounding is a major concern in nonexperimental studies of endoscopic interventions and can lead to biased estimates of the effects of treatment. Propensity score methods, which are commonly used in the pharmacoepidemiology literature, can effectively control for baseline confounding by balancing measured baseline confounders and risk factors and creating comparable populations of treated and untreated patients. METHODS: We propose the following 5-step checklist to guide the use and evaluation of propensity score methods: (1) select covariates, (2) assess "Table 1" balance in risk factors before propensity score implementation, (3) estimate and implement the propensity score in the study cohort, (4) reassess "Table 1" balance in risk factors after propensity score implementation, and (5) critically evaluate differences between matched and unmatched patients after propensity score implementation. We then applied this checklist to an endoscopy example using a study cohort of 411 adults with newly diagnosed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), some of whom were treated with esophageal dilation. RESULTS: We identified 156 patients, aged 18 and older, who were treated with esophageal dilation, and 255 patients who were nondilated. We successfully matched 148 (95%) dilated patients to nondilated patients who had a propensity score within 0.1, based on patient age, sex, race, self-reported food allergy, and presence of narrowing at baseline endoscopy. Crude imbalances were observed before propensity score matching in several baseline covariates, including age, sex, and narrowing; however, propensity score matching was successful in achieving balance across all measured covariates. CONCLUSIONS: We provide an introduction to propensity score methods, including a straightforward checklist for implementing propensity score methods in nonexperimental studies of treatment effectiveness. Moreover, we demonstrate the advantage of using "Table 1" as a simple but effective diagnostic tool for evaluating the success of propensity score methods in an applied example of esophageal dilation in EoE.

Burden and Cost of Outpatient Hemorrhoids in the United States Employer-Insured Population, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Although hemorrhoids are a common indication for seeking health care, there are no contemporary estimates of burden and cost. We examined data from an administrative claims database to estimate health care use and aggregate costs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for 2014. The analysis included 18.9 million individuals who were aged 18-64 and continuously enrolled with prescription coverage. Outpatient hemorrhoid claims were captured using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes in the first position, as well as Common Procedural Terminology codes. Prescription medications were identified using National Drug Codes. Annual prevalence and costs were determined by summing gross payments for prescription medications, physician encounters, and facility costs. We used validated weights to standardize annual cost estimates to the US employer-insured population. RESULTS: In 2014, we identified 227,638 individuals with at least one outpatient hemorrhoid-related claim (annual prevalence, 1.2%). Among those, 119,120 had prescription medication claims, 136,125 had physician claims, and 28,663 had facility claims. After standardizing, we estimated that 1.4 million individuals in the US employer-insured population sought care for hemorrhoids in 2014 for a total annual cost of $770 million. This included $322 million in physician claims, $361 million in outpatient facility claims, and $88 million in prescription medication claims. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated economic burden of hemorrhoids in the employer-insured population approaches $800 million annually. Given the substantial and rising burden and cost, expanded research attention should be directed to hemorrhoidal etiology, prevention, and treatment.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor use and risk of lower-extremity amputation: Evolving questions, evolving answers.

AIM: To examine whether sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a higher risk of lower-extremity amputation than dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sulphonylureas. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (2013-2015), to compare the incidence of lower-extremity amputation (LEA) between initiators of SGLT2 inhibitors and initiators of two second-line drugs, DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas (SUs). We estimated crude incidence rates (IRs) and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), before and after propensity-score weighting. We additionally conducted sensitivity analyses using a comparator group of all non-metformin, non-SGLT2 inhibitor glucose-lowering drugs, as previous studies used this approach. RESULTS: In a cohort of 328 150 individuals aged 18 to 64 years, the IR of LEA ranged from 1.5 to 2.4 per 1000 person-years. In as-treated analysis, the estimated hazard of LEA was increased among SGLT2 inhibitor initiators compared to DPP-4 inhibitor initiators (aHR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20-2.38), but not compared to SU initiators (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67-1.55) or non-metformin, non-SGLT2 inhibitor initiators (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.54-1.93). Results were consistent in intention-to-treat analysis and across a number of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured patients in the United States, our results suggest that initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors may increase the risk of LEA compared to initiation of DPP-4 inhibitors. Contrasting results when comparing SGLT2 inhibitor initiators to DPP-4 inhibitor and SU initiators highlight the importance of choosing appropriate comparator drugs when addressing comparative effectiveness and safety questions that can inform clinical decision-making.

Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underused. Screening rates are lower among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other insured populations. No studies have examined mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based outreach programs for Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return. RESULTS: In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.