Association of Bowel Urgency With Quality-of-Life Measures in Patients With Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results From Phase 3 LUCENT-1 (Induction) and LUCENT-2 (Maintenance) Studies.

Background: Improvement in bowel urgency (BU) was associated with better clinical outcomes in phase 3 LUCENT-1 (induction) and LUCENT-2 (maintenance) studies in moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed association of BU with quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes. Methods: LUCENT-1: 1162 patients randomized 3:1 to intravenous mirikizumab 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks (Q4W) for 12 weeks. LUCENT-2: 544 mirikizumab induction responders re-randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous mirikizumab 200 mg or placebo Q4W through Week (W) 40 (W52 of continuous treatment). Patients reported BU severity in the past 24 hours using a validated Urgency Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). In patients with baseline Urgency NRS ≥3, the association between BU Clinically Meaningful Improvement (CMI; ≥3-point decrease) and remission (score 0 or 1) with patient-reported outcomes was assessed at W12 and W52. Results: A significantly greater proportion of patients with versus without BU Remission achieved IBDQ remission (W12: 87.3% vs 42.7%, P < .0001; W52: 91.4% vs 45.5%, p < .0001). Similarly, BU Remission was associated with more patients achieving CMI in SF-36 Physical Component Summary (W12: 69.0% vs 44.4%, P < .0001; W52: 77.5% vs 42.1%, P < .0001) and Mental Component Summary (W12: 53.5% vs 41.0%, P = .0019; W52: 62.0% vs 38.3%, P < .0001) scores. At W12 and W52, patients with BU CMI or Remission showed significant improvements in EQ-5D-5L and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment:UC scores. Significant improvements were also seen in fatigue, abdominal pain, and nocturnal stool. Conclusions: In patients with moderately-to-severely active UC, improvement in BU was associated with improved QoL in phase 3 LUCENT-1 and LUCENT-2 studies. Clinical Studies: LUCENT-1: NCT03518086; LUCENT-2: NCT03524092.

Healthcare costs, resource utilization, and productivity loss associated with colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate healthcare costs, resource utilization, associated costs, and lost productivity for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an average-risk population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified average-risk individuals (50-75 years) with claims in the Optum Research Database for CRC screening test between 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018. Index date was defined as the first date of a claim for colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA). Screening costs were evaluated with descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses, adjusting for patient characteristics and index screening costs. RESULTS: In total, 903,831 individuals were identified by test groups: mt-sDNA (n = 29,614), FIT (n = 254,002), guaiac-based FOBT (n = 112,757) and colonoscopy (n = 507,458). Adjusted costs for index screening were, colonoscopy ($3,029), mt-sDNA ($752), FIT ($45), and (FOBT ($153). Adjusted costs across the six months following the index screening were $146 for colonoscopy, $329 for mt-sDNA, $306 for FIT, and $412 for FOBT. Colonoscopy had the highest costs for lost productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy had the highest productivity loss and healthcare costs up-front, suggesting potential cost benefits for noninvasive screening modalities. The more frequent screening interval required for FIT and FOBT resulted in a higher yearly cost than colonoscopy or mt-sDNA.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prominent healthcare concern the United States, which accounted for 149,500 new cases and 52,980 deaths in 2021. Screening is effective for diagnosing the condition at earlier more treatable stages, and reducing deaths. However, screening is largely underutilized in part due to perceived cost barriers. This observational study used insurance claims data to calculate healthcare costs, resource use, and lost productivity for CRC screening in an average-risk population aged 50­75 years. A total of 903,831 individuals were identified by test groups: multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA test; 29,614 individuals), fecal immunochemical test (FIT; 254,002 individuals), guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT; 112,757 individuals) and colonoscopy (507,458 individuals). Adjusted costs for initial screening were $3,029 for colonoscopy, $752 for mt-sDNA, $45 for FIT, and $153 for FOBT. Adjusted colonoscopy-related costs combined across the six months following the initial screening were $146 for the colonoscopy cohort, $329 for mt-sDNA, $306 for FIT, and $412 for FOBT. Colonoscopy had the highest costs for lost productivity. Overall, screening colonoscopy was accompanied by the highest productivity loss and up-front costs, suggesting potential cost benefits for noninvasive screening modalities ­ mt-sDNA, FIT, and FOBT; however, the more frequent screening interval required by FIT and FOBT resulted in a higher estimated average yearly screening cost.

Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

Patient and provider factors associated with colorectal cancer screening among average risk health plan enrollees in the US, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: To assess patient and primary care provider (PCP) factors associated with adherence to American Cancer Society (ACS) and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for average risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Retrospective case-control study of medical and pharmacy claims from the Optum Research Database from 01/01/2014 - 12/31/2018. Enrollee sample was adults aged 50 - 75 years with ≥ 24 months continuous health plan enrollment. Provider sample was PCPs listed on the claims of average-risk patients in the enrollee sample. Enrollee-level screening opportunities were based on their exposure to the healthcare system during the baseline year. Screening adherence, calculated at the PCP level, was the percent of average-risk patients up to date with screening recommendations each year. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine the association between receipt of screening and enrollee and PCP characteristics. An ordinary least squares model was used to determine the association between screening adherence among the PCP's panel of patients and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among patients with a PCP, adherence to ACS and USPSTF screening guidelines ranged from 69 to 80% depending on PCP specialty and type. The greatest enrollee-level predictors for CRC screening were having a primary/preventive care visit (OR = 4.47, p < 0.001) and a main PCP (OR = 2.69, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to preventive/primary care visits could improve CRC screening rates; however, interventions not dependent on healthcare system contact, such as home-based screening, may circumvent the dependence on primary care visits to complete CRC screening.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Clinical Characteristics Influence Advanced Neoplasia Risk After Colorectal Polypectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Postpolypectomy risk stratification for subsequent metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) is imprecise and does not account for colonoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to assess association of ADR with MAN and create a prediction model for postpolypectomy risk stratification incorporating ADR and other factors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals with baseline polypectomy and subsequent surveillance colonoscopy from 2004 to 2016 within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Clinical factors, polyp findings, and baseline colonoscopist ADR were considered for the model. Model performance (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve) for identifying individuals with MAN was compared with 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) surveillance recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 30,897 individuals were randomly assigned 2:1 into independent model training and validation sets. Increasing age, male sex, diabetes, current smoking, adenoma number, polyp location, adenoma ≥10 mm or with tubulovillous/villous features, and decreasing colonoscopist ADR were independently associated with MAN. A range of 1.48- to 1.66-fold increased risk for MAN was observed for ADR in the lowest 3 quintiles (ADR <19.7%-39.3%) vs the highest quintile (ADR >47.0%). When the final model selected based on the training set was applied to the validation set, improved sensitivity and specificity over 2020 USMSTF risk stratification were achieved (P = .001), with an area under the curve of 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopist ADR is associated with MAN. Combining clinical factors and ADR for risk stratification has potential to improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. Improving ADR is likely to improve postpolypectomy outcomes.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Colorectal screening among average risk individuals in the United States, 2015-2018.

Colorectal cancer screening rates are important metrics for public health and quality indicators for health care systems; however, published estimates of colorectal cancer screening rates often include both high-risk and average-risk patients, and the use of different epidemiologic methods makes between-study comparisons tenuous. The objective of this study was to measure the proportion of average-risk American adults who are up to date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines and examine the impact of evaluation methods on screening rate estimates. This repeated cross-sectional study used administrative claims to identify individuals aged 50-75 years between 2015 and 2018 with ≥ 1-year of continuous health plan enrollment. Sensitivity analyses to replicate prior studies in the literature included: 1) retrospective cohort study requiring ≥ 10 years of continuous enrollment to identify the most current screening rates (2018), and 2) inclusion of individuals with higher colorectal cancer risk. A total of 2,579,898; 2,948,064; 3,312,882; and 2,752,864 individuals were included in the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 populations, respectively. In the cross-sectional sample, the proportion of individuals with up-to-date colorectal cancer screening was 51.8%, 51.3%, 51.0%, and 51.1% in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. The inclusion of high-risk individuals increased estimates approximately 37%. Using a retrospective cohort design, 67.5% of average-risk individuals were up to date in 2018. This study demonstrated the impact of methodological differences on rate estimates. Efforts to track screening rates require transparency in measurement methods to accurately evaluate progress in improving rates.

Acid exposure time is sensitive for detecting gastroesophageal reflux disease and is associated with long-term survival after lung transplant.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in patients who have undergone lung transplantation and is associated with poorer outcomes, but guidelines are lacking to direct management strategies in this population. We assessed the diagnostic yield of impedance metrics compared to pH-metry alone for detecting GERD among lung transplant recipients and evaluated their association with clinical outcomes. We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent lung transplantation. Demographic data, acid exposure time (AET), number of reflux episodes, mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI), post-reflux swallowing-induced peristaltic wave index (PSPWI), and clinical outcomes including mortality were collected. The relationship between GERD metrics and clinical outcomes was assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Of the 76 patients studied, 29 (38%) had GERD based on abnormal AET after lung transplantation. One (1.3%) patient had GERD based on elevated number of reflux episodes and abnormal distal MNBI detected GERD in 19 (26%) patients, resulting in 62% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Two (2.6%) patients had normal PSPWI. Patients with low distal MNBI had significantly decreased forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 3-year posttransplant compared to those without low distal MNBI (P = 0.03). Three-year survival was significantly worse among patients with elevated AET (66.7% vs. 89.1%, P = 0.03) but not with low distal MNBI (68.4% vs. 84.3%, P = 0.18). Abnormal AET is more sensitive for detecting GERD than other reflux metrics studied and is associated with survival, suggesting pH-metry alone may be sufficient to guide GERD management after lung transplant.

Index Symptoms and Prognosis Awareness of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer: A Multi-Site Palliative Care Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a poor 5-year survival and carries significant morbidity. Pain is a commonly studied symptom in pancreatic cancer; however, few studies examine the frequency of multiple patient-reported symptoms. Our aim is to ascertain patient-reported symptom burden at initial consultation with a palliative care provider and compare patient prognostic awareness to provider estimation of prognosis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the standardized Quality Data Collection Tool (QDACT). Adults with pancreatic cancer seen by a palliative care provider were included. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic features, symptom prevalence and burden, as well as assess patient prognosis awareness defined by congruence or incongruence with provider estimated prognosis. RESULTS: 285 patients were included in our analysis. The average age was 68 years (SD: 12.4), 87.2% were white, 50% male. The mean number of moderate/severe symptoms was 2.6 (SD: 2) out of 9 symptoms. Tiredness (66.7%), appetite (64.5%) and pain (46.2%) had the highest rates of moderate/severe symptom burden. Patients with a prognosis of 1-6 months had the lowest proportion of congruence with provider estimation (56.5%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests targets to improve patient-centered care of pancreatic cancer. Patients commonly have multiple symptoms that are moderate/severe at time of palliative care referral. While pain has been well-reported, tiredness and decreased appetite are more prevalent at initial visit. This emphasizes the importance of assessing multiple symptoms and working closely with palliative care for early referral. Overall, one third of patient prognosis estimates differed from the provider assessment of prognosis. Our data support the importance of early referral to palliative care to manage symptoms and better prepare patients for end-of-life care.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening and healthcare resource utilization: a longitudinal analysis in Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-75 years.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence in Medicare beneficiaries and associated healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and Medicare costs. METHODS: Using 20% Medicare random sample data, the study population included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66-75 years on 1 January 2009, at average risk for CRC and continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A/B from 2008 to 2018. We excluded those who had undergone colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy during 2007-2008 and assumed everyone was due for screening in 2009; screening patterns were determined for 2009-2018. Based on US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, individuals were categorized as adherent to screening, inadequately screened or not screened. HCRU and Medicare costs were calculated as mean per patient per year (PPPY). RESULTS: Of 895,846 eligible individuals, 13.2% were adherent to screening, 53.4% were inadequately screened, and 33.4% were not screened. Compared with those not screened, adherent or inadequately screened individuals were more likely to be female, White and have comorbidities. These individuals also used more healthcare services, generating higher Medicare costs. For example, physician visits were 14.6, 22.9 and 25.9 PPPY and total Medicare costs were $6102, $8469 and $9102 PPPY for those not screened, inadequately screened and adherent, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare beneficiaries at average risk, adherence to CRC screening was low, although the rate might be underestimated due to lack of early Medicare data. The link between HCRU and screening status suggests that screening initiatives independent of clinical visits may be needed to reach unscreened or inadequately screened individuals.

Incident colorectal cancer screening and associated healthcare resource utilization and Medicare cost among Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-75 years in 2016-2018.

BACKGROUND: While prevalence of up-to-date screening status is the usual reported statistic, annual screening incidence may better reflect current clinical practices and is more actionable. Our main purpose was to examine incident colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in Medicare beneficiaries and to explore characteristics associated with CRC screening. METHODS: Using 20% Medicare random sample data, the study population included 2016-2018 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries covered by Parts A and B aged 66-75 years at average CRC risk. For each study year, we excluded individuals who had a Medicare claim for a colonoscopy within 9 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy within 4 years, and multitarget stool DNA test (mt-sDNA) within 2 years prior; therefore, any observed screening during study year was considered an "incident screening". Incident screening rates were calculated as number of incident screenings per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries. Overall rates were normalized to 2018 Medicare population distributions of age, sex, and race. RESULTS: Each year, > 1.4 million individuals met the inclusion/exclusion criteria from > 6.5 million Medicare beneficiaries. The overall adjusted incident CRC screening rate per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries increased from 85.2 in 2016 to 94.3 in 2018. Incident screening rates decreased 11.4% (22.9 to 20.3) for colonoscopy and 2.4% (58.3 to 56.9) for fecal immunochemical test/guaiac-based fecal occult blood test; they increased 201.5% (6.5 to 19.6) for mt-sDNA. The 2018 unadjusted rate was 76.0 for men and 110.4 for women. By race/ethnicity, the highest 2018 rate was for Asian individuals and the lowest rate was for Black individuals (113.4 and 72.8, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 2016-2018 observed incident CRC screening rate in average-risk Medicare beneficiaries, while increasing, was still low. Our findings suggest more work is needed to improve CRC screening overall and, especially, among male and Black Medicare beneficiaries.

Screening and brief intervention for alcohol use disorder risk in three middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the prevalence of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol use disorder (AUD) risk in samples of adult drinkers in three middle-income countries (Brazil, China, South Africa), and the extent to which meeting criteria for AUD risk was associated with SBI. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from adult samples in two cities in each country in 2018. Survey measures included past-year alcohol use, the CAGE assessment for AUD risk, talking to a health care professional in the past year, alcohol use screening by a health care professional, receiving advice about drinking from a health care professional, and sociodemographic characteristics. The prevalence of SBI was determined for past-year drinkers in each country and for drinkers who had talked to a health care professional. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether meeting criteria for AUD risk was associated with SBI when adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among drinkers at risk for AUD, alcohol use screening rates ranged from 6.7% in South Africa to 14.3% in Brazil, and brief intervention rates ranged from 4.6% in South Africa to 8.2% in China. SBI rates were higher among drinkers who talked to a health care professional in the past year. In regression analyses, AUD risk was positively associated with SBI in China and South Africa, and with brief intervention in Brazil. CONCLUSION: Although the prevalence of SBI among drinkers at risk for AUD in Brazil, China, and South Africa appears to be low, it is encouraging that these drinkers were more likely to receive SBI.

Locked Down: Economic and Health Effects of COVID-19 Response on Residents of a South African Township.

Background: Little research has examined how pandemics affect residents in under-resourced communities. This study investigated how COVID-19 and lockdown policies affected residents of Alexandra, one of Johannesburg, South Africa's lowest-income townships. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey May 11-22, 2020, while the lockdown and alcohol ban were in effect, of a spatially stratified sample of 353 adult Alexandra residents drawn randomly from voter registration, credit card application, and prior studies' sampling frames. We examined economic consequences; health experiences, including COVID-19 exposure and mental health symptoms; alcohol use; and personal experiences with violence. Results: Respondents were aged 18 to 89 and 47% female. About 70% of those employed before the lockdown were no longer working. Over half of households lost at least one source of income. About 50% of respondents reported stockpiling food. A majority reported price rises and declines in availability of food. Smaller percentages reported such changes for other items. Over 80% reported stress or anxiety, or depression due to the pandemic. The prevalence of past-week alcohol use fell from over 50% before the lockdown to less than 10% during the lockdown. Self-reported physical violence victimization increased. Discussion: COVID-19 and the lockdown disrupted Alexandra residents' lives through unemployment, lost income, mental health problems, and increased violence. The differences between these outcomes and those in more advantaged communities deserve investigation. Research should also seek to identify tailored responses to effectively address the challenges of marginalized communities that often have limited resources to deal with pandemics and policies to contain them.

A hands-free stool sampling system for monitoring intestinal health and disease.

Analysis of stool offers simple, non-invasive monitoring for many gastrointestinal (GI) diseases and access to the gut microbiome, however adherence to stool sampling protocols remains a major challenge because of the prevalent dislike of handling one's feces. We present a technology that enables individual stool specimen collection from toilet wastewater for fecal protein and molecular assay. Human stool specimens and a benchtop test platform integrated with a commercial toilet were used to demonstrate reliable specimen collection over a wide range of stool consistencies by solid/liquid separation followed by spray-erosion. The obtained fecal suspensions were used to perform occult blood tests for GI cancer screening and for microbiome 16S rRNA analysis. Using occult blood home test kits, we found overall 90% agreement with standard sampling, 96% sensitivity and 86% specificity. Microbiome analysis revealed no significant difference in within-sample species diversity compared to standard sampling and specimen cross-contamination was below the detection limit of the assay. Furthermore, we report on the use of an analogue turbidity sensor to assess in real time loose stools for tracking of diarrhea. Implementation of this technology in residential settings will improve the quality of GI healthcare by facilitating increased adherence to routine stool monitoring.

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines include several options for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that vary in aspects such as invasiveness, recommended frequency, and precision. Thus, patient and provider preferences can help identify an appropriate screening strategy. This study elicited CRC screening preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for CRC (IAR). METHODS: IAR aged 45-75 years and licensed physicians (primary care or gastroenterology) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants were recruited from representative access panels in the US. Within the DCE, participants traded off preferences between screening type, screening frequency, true-positive, true-negative, and adenoma true positive (physicians only). A mixed logit model was used to obtain predicted choice probabilities for colonoscopy, multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) blood test. RESULTS: Preferences of IAR and physicians were affected by screening precision and screening type. IAR also valued more regular screening. Physicians preferred colonoscopy (96.8%) over mt-sDNA (2.8%; p < 0.001), FIT (0.3%; p < 0.001) and mSEPT9 blood test (0.1%; p < 0.01). IAR preferred mt-sDNA (38.8%) over colonoscopy (32.5%; p < 0.001), FIT (19.2%; p < 0.001), and mSEPT9 blood test (9.4%; p < 0.001). IAR naïve to screening preferred non-invasive screening (p < 0.001), while the opposite was found for those who previously underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: While physicians overwhelmingly preferred colonoscopy, preferences of IAR were heterogenous, with mt-sDNA being most frequently preferred on average. Offering choices in addition to colonoscopy could improve CRC screening uptake among IAR. This study used a discrete choice experiment in the US to elicit preferences of physicians and individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer screening modalities and their characteristics.

Costs of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy, including post-endoscopy events, among adults with Medicaid insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the healthcare utilization and costs associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by colonoscopy, including costs associated with post-endoscopy events, among average-risk adults covered by Medicaid insurance. METHODS: This cohort study evaluated a population of adults (ages 50-75 years) with CRC screening between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2018 (index = earliest test) from the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database. Individuals at above-average risk for CRC or with prior CRC screening were excluded. CRC screening was reported by screening type: colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test [FIT], fecal occult blood test [FOBT], multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA]. Frequency and costs of events potentially related to colonoscopy (defined as occurring within 30 days post-endoscopy) were reported overall, by event type, and by individual event. RESULTS: We identified a total of 13,134 average-risk adults covered by Medicaid insurance who received screening by colonoscopy; 63.6% (8350) had Medicare dual-eligibility while 36.4% (4785) did not have Medicare dual-eligibility. The mean (SD) cost of a colonoscopy procedure was $684 ($907) and mean (SD) out-of-pocket costs were $6 ($132). Serious gastrointestinal (GI) events (perforation and bleeding) were observed in 4.6% of individuals with colonoscopy, 4.3% had other GI events, and 3.0% had an incident cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event. Mean (SD) event-related costs were $1233 ($5784) among individuals with a serious GI event, $747 ($1961) among individuals with other GI events, and $4398 ($19,369) among individuals with a cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event. CONCLUSIONS: This large, claims-based cohort study reports average (SD) out-of-pocket costs for Medicaid beneficiaries at $6 ($132), which could be one factor contributing to the accessibility of CRC screening by colonoscopy. The incidence of events potentially associated with colonoscopy (i.e. within 30 days after the screening) was 3-4%, and the event-related costs were considerable.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used medications in the world. Developed for the treatment and prevention of acid-mediated upper gastrointestinal conditions, these agents are being used increasingly for indications where their benefits are less certain. PPI overprescription imposes an economic cost and contributes to polypharmacy. In addition, PPI use has been increasingly linked to a number of adverse events (PPI-associated adverse events [PAAEs]). Therefore, de-prescribing of PPIs is an important strategy to lower pill burden while reducing real costs and theoretical risks. The purpose of this clinical update was to provide Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements about how to approach PPI de-prescribing in ambulatory patients. METHODS: Our guiding principle was that, although PPIs are generally safe, patients should not use any medication when there is not a reasonable expectation of benefit based on scientific evidence or prior treatment response. Prescribers are responsible for determining whether PPI use is absolutely or conditionally indicated and, when uncertainty exists, to incorporate patient perspectives into PPI decision making. We collaboratively outlined a high-level "process map" of the conceptual approach to de-prescribing PPIs in a clinical setting. We identified the following 3 key domains that required BPA guidance: documentation of PPI indication; identifying suitable candidates for consideration of de-prescribing; and optimizing successful de-prescribing. Co-authors drafted 1 or more potential BPAs, supported by literature review, for each domain. All co-authors reviewed, edited, and selected or rejected draft BPAs for inclusion in the final list submitted to the American Gastroenterological Association Governing Board. Because this was not a systematic review, we did not carry out a formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All patients taking a PPI should have a regular review of the ongoing indications for use and documentation of that indication. This review should be the responsibility of the patient's primary care provider. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All patients without a definitive indication for chronic PPI should be considered for trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Most patients with an indication for chronic PPI use who take twice-daily dosing should be considered for step down to once-daily PPI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Patients with complicated gastroesophageal reflux disease, such as those with a history of severe erosive esophagitis, esophageal ulcer, or peptic stricture, should generally not be considered for PPI discontinuation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Patients with known Barrett's esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis, or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should generally not be considered for a trial of de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: PPI users should be assessed for upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk using an evidence-based strategy before de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding should not be considered for PPI de-prescribing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients who discontinue long-term PPI therapy should be advised that they may develop transient upper gastrointestinal symptoms due to rebound acid hypersecretion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When de-prescribing PPIs, either dose tapering or abrupt discontinuation can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PAAEs. The presence of a PAAE or a history of a PAAE in a current PPI user is not an independent indication for PPI withdrawal. Similarly, the presence of underlying risk factors for the development of an adverse event associated with PPI use should also not be an independent indication for PPI withdrawal.

Adherence to fecal immunochemical test screening among adults at average risk for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study examined adherence to screening for fecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS: Adults (≥ 50-75) with a FIT between 1/1/2014 and 6/30/2019 in MarketScan administrative claims were selected (index = earliest FIT). Patients were followed for 10 years pre- and 3 years post-index. Patients at increased risk for CRC or with prior screening were excluded. Year over year adherence was measured post-index. RESULTS: Of 10,253 patients, the proportion adherent to repeat testing at year 2 was 23.4% and 10.6% at year 3. Of 76.6% not adherent in year 2, 5.4% were adherent in year 3. CONCLUSION: Results suggest adherence to FIT tests is poor, minimizing potential benefits. Future studies are needed to consider alternative test options and whether more choice will improve long-term adherence.

Healthcare costs of colorectal cancer screening and events following colonoscopy among commercially insured average-risk adults in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the healthcare costs associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and the frequency and costs of events potentially related to colonoscopy among average-risk adults. METHODS: In this cohort study, adults (ages 50-75 years) with CRC screening between 1/1/2014 and 6/30/2019 (index = earliest test) were selected from the IBM MarketScan Research databases. Individuals at above-average risk for CRC or with prior CRC screening were excluded. Frequency of utilization was reported by screening type: colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), fecal occult blood test (FOBT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA). For colonoscopy, frequency and costs of potential events were reported overall, by event type, and by an individual event in the 30 days after colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among the 333,306 average-risk adults, colonoscopy was the most common CRC screening modality (70.6%), followed by FIT (17.7%), FOBT (8.1%), and mt-sDNA (3.2%). The mean cost of a colonoscopy procedure was $2,125 and the mean out-of-pocket costs were $79. Serious gastrointestinal (GI) events were observed in 1.3% of individuals with colonoscopy, 1.9% had other GI events, and 1.2% had an incident cardiovascular event. Mean event-related costs were $2,631 among individuals with a serious GI event, $1,774 among individuals with any other GI event, and $4,234 among individuals with a cardiovascular event. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides updated and more detailed information regarding the costs of CRC screening and potential colonoscopy events based on a comprehensive review of a robust claims dataset.

Utilization of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Among Individuals With Average Risk.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. It is important to examine screening patterns over time, including after the introduction of new screening modalities. Objective: To compare use of CRC screening tests before and after the availability of the multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, given that endorsed options have changed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study used administrative claims data to examine CRC screening use in 2 discrete periods: before (August 1, 2011, to July 31, 2014) and after (August 1, 2016, to July 31, 2019) the mt-sDNA test became available. The MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases were queried for individuals aged 45 to 75 years between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2019, with average risk of CRC and with continuous enrollment in the databases from August 1, 2001, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of individuals up to date or not due for CRC screening during each measurement year and the type of screening test used among individuals due for screening. Data were reported overall and among individuals aged 45 to 49 or 50 years and older on August 1, 2011. Results: A total of 97 776 individuals with average risk were identified. Individuals had a mean (SD) age of 50.8 (3.5) years, and 54 227 (55.5%) were women. The proportion of individuals with average risk aged 50 to 75 years with commercial or Medicare supplemental insurance who were up to date with CRC screening increased from 50.4% in 2011 (30 605 of 60 770) to 69.7% in 2019 (42 367 of 60 770). Among individuals due for screening and screened, the use of high-sensitivity fecal occult blood test (FOBT) decreased between 2011 (1088 of 6241 eligible individuals [17.7%]) and 2019 (195 of 2943 eligible individuals [6.6%]), and the use of mt-sDNA increased between 2016 (58 of 3014 eligible individuals [1.9%]) and 2019 (418 of 2943 eligible individuals [14.2%]). No consistent trends were observed with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or screening colonoscopy. Computed tomography colonography, double-contrast barium enema, and flexible sigmoidoscopy were rarely performed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the proportion of individuals with average risk who were up to date with CRC screening increased between 2011 and 2019 but remained suboptimal. There were no substantial changes in the use of the colonoscopy or FIT; however, there was an increase in the adoption of mt-sDNA and a decrease in the use of FOBT during the study period.