Propensity weighted analysis of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis agents in isolated severe traumatic brain injury: An EAST sponsored multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), clinicians must balance preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of intracranial hemorrhagic expansion (ICHE). We hypothesized that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) would not increase risk of ICHE or VTE as compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age with isolated severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3), admitted to 24 level I and II trauma centers between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 and who received subcutaneous UH and LMWH injections for chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) were included. Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE after VTEP initiation. Secondary outcomes were mortality and neurosurgical interventions. Entropy balancing (EBAL) weighted competing risk or logistic regression models were estimated for all outcomes with chemical VTEP agent as the predictor of interest. RESULTS: 984 patients received chemical VTEP, 482 UH and 502 LMWH. Patients on LMWH more often had pre-existing conditions such as liver disease (UH vs LMWH 1.7 % vs. 4.4 %, p = 0.01), and coagulopathy (UH vs LMWH 0.4 % vs. 4.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no differences in VTE or ICHE after VTEP initiation. There were no differences in neurosurgical interventions performed. There were a total of 29 VTE events (3 %) in the cohort who received VTEP. A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect for facility demonstrated no statistically significant differences in time to VTE across the two agents (p = 0.44). The LMWH group had a 43 % lower risk of overall ICHE compared to the UH group (HR = 0.57: 95 % CI = 0.32-1.03, p = 0.062), however was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this multi-center analysis, patients who received LMWH had a decreased risk of ICHE, with no differences in VTE, ICHE after VTEP initiation and neurosurgical interventions compared to those who received UH. There were no safety concerns when using LMWH compared to UH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Care Management.

Early VTE prophylaxis in severe traumatic brain injury: A propensity score weighted EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). We hypothesized that early chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation (≤24 hours of a stable head CT) in severe TBI would reduce VTE without increasing risk of intracranial hemorrhage expansion (ICHE). METHODS: A retrospective review of adult patients 18 years or older with isolated severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Scale score, ≥ 3) who were admitted to 24 Level I and Level II trauma centers from January 1, 2014 to December 31 2020 was conducted. Patients were divided into those who did not receive any VTE prophylaxis (NO VTEP), who received VTE prophylaxis ≤24 hours after stable head CT (VTEP ≤24) and who received VTE prophylaxis >24 hours after stable head CT (VTEP>24). Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE. Covariate balancing propensity score weighting was utilized to balance demographic and clinical characteristics across three groups. Weighted univariate logistic regression models were estimated for VTE and ICHE with patient group as predictor of interest. RESULTS: Of 3,936 patients, 1,784 met inclusion criteria. Incidences of VTE was significantly higher in the VTEP>24 group, with higher incidences of DVT in the group. Higher incidences of ICHE were observed in the VTEP≤24 and VTEP>24 groups. After propensity score weighting, there was a higher risk of VTE in patients in VTEP >24 compared with those in VTEP≤24 (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.30; p = 0.307), however was not significant. Although, the No VTEP group had decreased odds of having ICHE compared with VTEP≤24 (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.02, p = 0.070), the result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this large multi-center analysis, there were no significant differences in VTE based on timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis. Patients who never received VTE prophylaxis had decreased odds of ICHE. Further evaluation of VTE prophylaxis in larger randomized studies will be necessary for definitive conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Care Management; Level III.

The Multiple Waves of COVID-19 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Temporal Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have emerged in discrete waves. We explored temporal trends in the reporting of COVID-19 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. METHODS: The Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is an international registry of IBD patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The average percent changes (APCs) were calculated in weekly reported cases of COVID-19 during the periods of March 22 to September 12, September 13 to December 12, 2020, and December 13 to July 31, 2021. RESULTS: Across 73 countries, 6404 cases of COVID-19 were reported in IBD patients. COVID-19 reporting decreased globally by 4.2% per week (95% CI, -5.3% to -3.0%) from March 22 to September 12, 2020, then climbed by 10.2% per week (95% CI, 8.1%-12.3%) from September 13 to December 12, 2020, and then declined by 6.3% per week (95% CI, -7.8% to -4.7%). In the fall of 2020, weekly reporting climbed in North America (APC, 11.3%; 95% CI, 8.8-13.8) and Europe (APC, 17.7%; 95% CI, 12.1%-23.5%), whereas reporting was stable in Asia (APC, -8.1%; 95% CI, -15.6-0.1). From December 13, 2020, to July 31, 2021, reporting of COVID-19 in those with IBD declined in North America (APC, -8.5%; 95% CI, -10.2 to -6.7) and Europe (APC, -5.4%; 95% CI, -7.2 to -3.6) and was stable in Latin America (APC, -1.5%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Temporal trends in reporting of COVID-19 in those with IBD are consistent with the epidemiological patterns COVID-19 globally.

COVID-19 Outcomes Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Individuals With Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 29 million people and led to more than 542,000 deaths in the United States.1 Older age, comorbidities, and racial and ethnic minority status are associated with severe COVID-19.2 Among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), racial and ethnic minorities have worse outcomes, mediated in part by inequitable health care access.3 Racial and ethnic minority patients with IBD and COVID-19 may be an especially vulnerable population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among IBD patients and the impact of non-IBD comorbidities on observed disparities.

Effect of IBD medications on COVID-19 outcomes: results from an international registry.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate COVID-19 clinical course in patients with IBD treated with different medication classes and combinations. DESIGN: Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is a large, international registry created to monitor outcomes of IBD patients with confirmed COVID-19. We used multivariable regression with a generalised estimating equation accounting for country as a random effect to analyse the association of different medication classes with severe COVID-19, defined as intensive care unit admission, ventilator use and/or death. RESULTS: 1439 cases from 47 countries were included (mean age 44.1 years, 51.4% men) of whom 112 patients (7.8%) had severe COVID-19. Compared with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist monotherapy, thiopurine monotherapy (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.08, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.61) and combination therapy with TNF antagonist and thiopurine (aOR 4.01, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.78) were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. Any mesalamine/sulfasalazine compared with no mesalamine/sulfasalazine use was associated with an increased risk (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.29). This risk estimate increased when using TNF antagonist monotherapy as a reference group (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.93 to 6.45). Interleukin-12/23 and integrin antagonists were not associated with significantly different risk than TNF antagonist monotherapy (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 8.06 and aOR 2.42, 95% CI 0.59 to 9.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: Combination therapy and thiopurines may be associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19. No significant differences were observed when comparing classes of biologicals. These findings warrant confirmation in large population-based cohorts.MKH should be changed to MDK for co-last author line.

Physician Practice Patterns in Holding Inflammatory Bowel Disease Medications due to COVID-19, in the SECURE-IBD Registry.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe physician practice patterns in holding or continuing IBD therapy in the setting of COVID-19 infection, using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease [SECURE-IBD] registry. METHODS: IBD medications that were stopped due to COVID-19 were recorded in the SECURE-IBD registry in addition to demographic and clinical data. We conducted descriptive analyses to understand characteristics associated with stopping IBD medications in response to active COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: Of 1499 patients, IBD medications were stopped in 518 [34.6%] patients. On bivariate and multivariable analyses, a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or IBD-unspecified was associated with a lower odds of stopping medication compared with Crohn's disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48, 0.75). When evaluating specific medications, 5-aminosalicylic acid was more likely to be continued [p <0.001] whereas anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy and immunomodulator therapy were more likely to be stopped [global p <0.001]. Other demographic and clinical characteristics did not affect prescription patterns. CONCLUSIONS: IBD medications other than immunomodulators were continued in the majority of IBD patients with COVID-19, in the international SECURE-IBD registry. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of stopping or continuing IBD medications on IBD- and COVID-19 related outcomes.

Corticosteroids, But Not TNF Antagonists, Are Associated With Adverse COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Results From an International Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unknown. We sought to characterize the clinical course of COVID-19 among patients with IBD and evaluate the association among demographics, clinical characteristics, and immunosuppressant treatments on COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) is a large, international registry created to monitor outcomes of patients with IBD with confirmed COVID-19. We calculated age-standardized mortality ratios and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with severe COVID-19, defined as intensive care unit admission, ventilator use, and/or death. RESULTS: 525 cases from 33 countries were reported (median age 43 years, 53% men). Thirty-seven patients (7%) had severe COVID-19, 161 (31%) were hospitalized, and 16 patients died (3% case fatality rate). Standardized mortality ratios for patients with IBD were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.6), 1.5 (95% CI, 0.7-2.2), and 1.7 (95% CI, 0.9-2.5) relative to data from China, Italy, and the United States, respectively. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 among patients with IBD included increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02), ≥2 comorbidities (aOR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.8), systemic corticosteroids (aOR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.3-20.5), and sulfasalazine or 5-aminosalicylate use (aOR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.7). Tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment was not associated with severe COVID-19 (aOR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4-2.2). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing age, comorbidities, and corticosteroids are associated with severe COVID-19 among patients with IBD, although a causal relationship cannot be definitively established. Notably, tumor necrosis factor antagonists do not appear to be associated with severe COVID-19.

Better Understanding and Recognition of the Disconnects, Experiences, and Needs of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation (BURDEN IBS-C) Study: Results of an Online Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The BURDEN IBS-C study was conducted to better understand the experiences, attitudes, and unmet needs of sufferers of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) in comparison to the perceptions and challenges of healthcare providers (HCPs) who treat IBS-C patients. METHODS: This was an author-developed, online questionnaire using KnowledgePanel® to survey individuals with IBS-C (N = 1311). HCPs participated in a complementary online questionnaire and were recruited separately (N = 331). The study was fielded from June 29, 2016, to January 30, 2017. RESULTS: Most patients had used (86%) and/or were using (76%) over-the-counter treatments for their IBS-C, with 12% currently on prescription therapy. At the time this study was conducted, 66% and 63% were not satisfied/completely satisfied with over-the-counter or prescription treatment, respectively, citing inadequate efficacy (55%) and side effects (39%), most commonly diarrhea, as common reasons for dissatisfaction. IBS-C respondents most commonly reported feeling frustrated (43%) and stressed (28%) regarding IBS-C, though 39% were accepting of IBS-C as part of daily life. HCPs were aligned with patients in thinking that patients were frustrated (76%) and stressed (65%) but HCPs were less likely to recognize that patients had become accepting of their IBS-C (13%). Most HCPs (79%) were not satisfied/completely satisfied with the prescription treatments available at the time this study was conducted. Inadequate response rates to current therapies (55%) and treatment adherence/compliance issues (58%) were the most frequent challenges encountered by HCPs. IBS-C respondents reported that their symptoms impacted productivity and personal activity, on average, 4 and 3 days/month, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that current management pathways may not be adequately addressing the symptoms and needs of individuals with IBS-C, most notably side effects and lack of efficacy. Patients and HCPs expressed dissatisfaction with over-the-counter and prescription treatments available at the time this study was conducted. Additional treatment options and improved dialogue would be beneficial to HCPs and patients. FUNDING: Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The Better Understanding and Recognition of the Disconnects, Experiences, and Needs of Patients with Chronic Idiopathic Constipation (BURDEN-CIC) Study: Results of an Online Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited literature comparing the experiences and attitudes of patients with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) to those of healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating CIC patients. The BURDEN-CIC study was conducted to better understand the experiences and ongoing needs of CIC patients and to assess their alignment versus disconnection with the perceptions and needs of HCPs who treat CIC patients. METHODS: The BURDEN-CIC study was an author-developed, online questionnaire that used KnowledgePanel® to survey individuals with CIC (n = 1223). HCPs who treat CIC patients were recruited separately and participated in a complementary online questionnaire (n = 331). RESULTS: Most patients had used (58%) or were using (51%) over-the-counter treatments for their CIC, with only 16% currently on prescription therapy. More than half (59%) of current CIC prescription users were not satisfied/completely satisfied with their current chronic treatment. Many patients (42%) felt frustrated regarding their CIC, and a similar percentage (40%) expressed acceptance that CIC was part of their daily life. The majority of HCPs agreed that CIC patients were frustrated (72%), stressed (50%), or fed up (43%) with current treatment options but were relatively unaware (21%) that patients were accepting of their CIC. HCPs reported the greatest challenges in treating CIC patients as response rates to current therapies (55%), treatment adherence (55%), management of treatment-related diarrhea (34%), and lack of treatment options (34%). CONCLUSION: BURDEN-CIC identified that many patients and HCPs are frustrated and not satisfied with current CIC treatments due to lack of efficacy and side effects, such as diarrhea. The survey identified that many patients are "accepting" of their disease, potentially compromising treatment outcomes. More dialogue is needed between HCPs and CIC patients, especially regarding management of treatment expectations and side effects. Further, additional treatment options would be useful for both patients and HCPs. FUNDING: Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Do guidelines matter? Implementation of the ACG and AGA osteoporosis screening guidelines in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who meet the guidelines' criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) have both recently issued guidelines (the "Guidelines") regarding the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The objective of this study was to determine the yield of implementing the Guidelines' recommendations in a prospective cohort of IBD patients and identify the prevalence of bone loss, risk factors, and potential influence on management. METHODS: One hundred consecutive IBD patients who fulfilled the Guidelines' criteria underwent dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning (DEXA) scanning of the lumbar vertebrae and bilateral hips. Demographic data, risk factor information, and changes in therapy based on screening were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Indications for screening were history of prolonged past or concurrent steroid use (92%), postmenopausal status (7%), and history of low trauma fracture (7%). Forty-four percent of patients had osteopenia of either the lumbar spine or the hips, 12% had osteoporosis of either the spine or hips, and 44% had normal bone density. In a univariate analysis, factors predicting a greater likelihood of osteoporosis (but not osteopenia) were a diagnosis of Crohn's disease (vs. ulcerative colitis), low body mass index in women, and postmenopausal status. Specific therapies based on DEXA findings were initiated in 69% of patients: oral calcium and vitamin D supplementation in 69% and an oral bisphoshphonate in 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the Guidelines led to the detection of osteopenia or osteoporosis and initiation of specific therapies in a majority of patients who met the Guidelines' criteria for DEXA screening.