African American race does not confer an increased risk of clinical events in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) among African Americans (AA) is not well understood. METHODS: Transplant-free survival and hepatic decompensation-free survival were assessed using a retrospective research registry from 16 centers throughout North America. Patients with PSC alive without liver transplantation after 2008 were included. Diagnostic delay was defined from the first abnormal liver test to the first abnormal cholangiogram/liver biopsy. Socioeconomic status was imputed by the Zip code. RESULTS: Among 850 patients, 661 (77.8%) were non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), and 85 (10.0%) were AA. There were no significant differences by race in age at diagnosis, sex, or PSC type. Inflammatory bowel disease was more common in NHWs (75.8% vs. 51.8% p=0.0001). The baseline (median, IQR) Amsterdam-Oxford Model score was lower in NHWs (14.3, 13.4-15.2 vs. 15.1, 14.1-15.7, p=0.002), but Mayo risk score (0.03, -0.8 to 1.1 vs. 0.02, -0.7 to 1.0, p=0.83), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (5.9, 2.8-10.7 vs. 6.4, 2.6-10.4, p=0.95), and cirrhosis (27.4% vs. 27.1%, p=0.95) did not differ. Race was not associated with hepatic decompensation, and after adjusting for clinical variables, neither race nor socioeconomic status was associated with transplant-free survival. Variables independently associated with death/liver transplant (HR, 95% CI) included age at diagnosis (1.04, 1.02-1.06, p<0.0001), total bilirubin (1.06, 1.04-1.08, p<0.0001), and albumin (0.44, 0.33-0.61, p<0.0001). AA race did not affect the performance of prognostic models. CONCLUSIONS: AA patients with PSC have a lower rate of inflammatory bowel disease but similar progression to hepatic decompensation and liver transplant/death compared to NHWs.

Cohort study of new off-label gabapentin prescribing in chronic opioid users.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentin is commonly prescribed as an off-label adjunct to opioids because of its safer risk profile. Recent evidence has shown an increased risk of mortality when coprescribed with opioids. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether the addition of off-label gabapentin in patients with chronic opioid use is associated with a reduction in opioid dosage. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with chronic opioid use with a new off-label gabapentin prescription (2010-2019). Our primary outcome of interest was a reduction in opioid dosage measured via oral morphine equivalents (OME) per day after the addition of a new off-label gabapentin prescription. RESULTS: In our cohort of 172,607 patients, a new off-label gabapentin prescription was associated with a decrease in opioid dosage in 67,016 patients (38.8%) (median OME/day reduction:13.8), with no change in opioid dosage in 24,468 patients (14.2%), and an increase in opioid dosage in 81,123 patients (47.0%) (median OME/day increase: 14.3). A history of substance/alcohol use disorders was associated with a decrease in opioid dosage after the addition of a new off-label gabapentin (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.23). A history of pain disorders was associated with a decrease in opioid dosage after the initiation of a new gabapentin prescription including arthritis (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.15), back pain (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.12), and other pain conditions (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with chronic opioid use, an off-label gabapentin prescription did not reduce opioid dosage in the majority of patients. The coprescribing of these medications should be critically evaluated to ensure optimal patient safety.

Interobserver agreement and prognostic value of image-based scoring systems in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a cholestatic liver disease that progresses to cirrhosis and liver failure. The Anali and Amsterdam scores are based upon imaging features on MRI and ERCP, respectively. AIMS: We aimed to compare the interobserver variability and performances of these scores. METHODS: Patients with PSC with at least 1 MRCP were included. Images were independently scored by 2 experts. Agreement and prognostic performance with a primary end point of hepatic decompensation was assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included (67.8% male, 86.4% IBD). Interobserver agreement for the Anali and Amsterdam scores were moderate (k = 0.49; 95% CI 0.35-0.64 and k = 0.43; 95% CI 0.30-0.56, respectively). Among the Anali components, dysmorphy (caudate/right lobe ratio > 0.9) had fair agreement (k = 0.37; 95% CI 0.14-0.60) and portal hypertension (k = 0.64, 95% CI 0.32-0.89) and intrahepatic dilation (k = 0.70; 95% CI 0.53-0.87) had substantial agreement. The Amsterdam extrahepatic and intrahepatic scores had fair agreement (k = 0.38; 95% CI 0.23-0.52) and moderate agreement (k = 0.50; 95% CI 0.34-0.67), respectively. Anali score (HR 5.90, 95% CI 1.64-21.21), total bilirubin (HR = 3.23; 95% Cl 1.06-9.91), and age (HR = 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.11) were independent predictors of hepatic decompensation. Mayo risk score and Anali score had good discriminative ability with c-statistics of 0.78 (CI 0.59-0.96) and 0.76 (CI 0.56-0.91). Anali score remained an independent predictor after adjusting for Mayo risk score. CONCLUSION: Anali score adds additional predictive value for hepatic decompensation in patients with PSC.

Gabapentinoid Prescribing for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoids, including gabapentin and pregabalin, are commonly prescribed for neuropathic pain, but robust evidence recommends against using gabapentinoids for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We aimed to quantify national prescribing patterns of gabapentinoids for CTS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study using claims data of gabapentinoid-naïve patients with a new diagnosis of CTS (2009-2016). Our primary outcome was a new gabapentinoid fill for CTS. We assessed temporal trends and characteristics associated with a gabapentinoid fill. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between patient-level factors and a new gabapentinoid fill for CTS. RESULTS: Of the 248 324 previously gabapentinoid-naïve patients with CTS, 9589 patients (4%) filled a gabapentinoid prescription. Sixty-one percent were prescribed by primary care providers or medical subspecialists. Patients with a history of neck pain (odds ratio [OR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.38), back pain (OR: 1.25, 95% CI, 1.20-1.31), arthritis (OR: 1.25, 95% CI, 1.18-1.31), and other pain conditions (OR: 1.26, 95% CI, 1.20-1.31) were associated with an increased odds of a new gabapentinoid fill. In addition, patients with a history of alcohol or substance use disorder were significantly associated with a new gabapentinoid prescription fill (OR: 1.33, 95% CI, 1.20-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence recommending against the use of gabapentinoids for CTS, gabapentinoids were frequently initiated among those with higher risk for misuse, including substance use disorders. Given the effectiveness of bracing or surgery for CTS and the risks associated with gabapentinoids, efforts aimed at disseminating evidence-based treatment for CTS are critical to minimize the harms of gabapentinoid misuse.

Comparison of accuracy of prediction of postoperative mortality and morbidity between a new, parsimonious risk calculator (SURPAS) and the ACS Surgical Risk Calculator.

BACKGROUND: The novel Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) requires entry of five predictor variables (the other three variables of the eight-variable model are automatically obtained from the electronic health record or a table look-up), provides patient risk estimates compared to national averages, is integrated into the electronic health record, and provides a graphical handout of risks for patients. The accuracy of the SURPAS tool was compared to that of the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator (ACS-SRC). METHODS: Predicted risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity was calculated using both SURPAS and ACS-SRC for 1,006 randomly selected 2007-2016 ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) patients with known outcomes. C-indexes, Hosmer-Lemeshow graphs, and Brier scores were compared between SURPAS and ACS-SRC. RESULTS: ACS-SRC risk estimates for overall morbidity underestimated risk compared to observed postoperative overall morbidity, particularly for the highest risk patients. SURPAS accurately estimates morbidity risk compared to observed morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: SURPAS risk predictions were more accurate than ACS-SRC's for overall morbidity, particularly for high risk patients. SUMMARY: The accuracy of the SURPAS tool was compared to that of the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator (ACS-SRC). SURPAS risk predictions were more accurate than those of the ACS-SRC for overall morbidity, particularly for high risk patients.