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.

Tropifexor plus cenicriviroc combination versus monotherapy in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Results from the phase 2b TANDEM study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With distinct mechanisms of action, the combination of tropifexor (TXR) and cenicriviroc (CVC) may provide an effective treatment for NASH. This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase 2b study assessed the safety and efficacy of TXR and CVC combination, compared with respective monotherapies. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients (N = 193) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily TXR 140 µg (TXR 140 ), CVC 150 mg (CVC), TXR 140 µg + CVC 150 mg (TXR 140 + CVC), or TXR 90 µg + CVC 150 mg (TXR 90 + CVC) for 48 weeks. The primary and secondary end points were safety and histological improvement, respectively. Rates of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. Pruritus was the most frequently experienced AE, with highest incidence in the TXR 140 group (40.0%). In TXR and combination groups, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) decreased from baseline to 48 weeks (geometric mean change: -21%, TXR 140 ; -16%, TXR 140 + CVC; -13%, TXR 90 + CVC; and +17%, CVC). Reductions in body weight observed at week 24 (mean changes from baseline: TXR 140 , -2.5 kg; TXR 140 + CVC, -1.7 kg; TXR 90 + CVC, -1.0 kg; and CVC, -0.1 kg) were sustained to week 48. At least 1-point improvement in fibrosis stage/steatohepatitis resolution without worsening of fibrosis was observed in 32.3%/25.8%, 31.6%/15.8%, 29.7%/13.5%, and 32.5%/22.5% of patients in the TXR 140 , CVC, TXR 140 + CVC, and TXR 90 + CVC groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of TXR + CVC combination was similar to respective monotherapies, with no new signals. TXR monotherapy showed sustained ALT and body weight decreases. No substantial incremental efficacy was observed with TXR + CVC combination on ALT, body weight, or in histological end points compared with monotherapy.

NASHmap: clinical utility of a machine learning model to identify patients at risk of NASH in real-world settings.

The NASHmap model is a non-invasive tool using 14 variables (features) collected in standard clinical practice to classify patients as probable nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or non-NASH, and here we have explored its performance and prediction accuracy. The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) NAFLD Adult Database and the Optum Electronic Health Record (EHR) were used for patient data. Model performance metrics were calculated from correct and incorrect classifications for 281 NIDDK (biopsy-confirmed NASH and non-NASH, with and without stratification by type 2 diabetes status) and 1,016 Optum (biopsy-confirmed NASH) patients. NASHmap sensitivity in NIDDK is 81%, with a slightly higher sensitivity in T2DM patients (86%) than non-T2DM patients (77%). NIDDK patients misclassified by NASHmap had mean feature values distinct from correctly predicted patients, particularly for aspartate transaminase (AST; 75.88 U/L true positive vs 34.94 U/L false negative), and alanine transaminase (ALT; 104.09 U/L vs 47.99 U/L). Sensitivity was slightly lower in Optum at 72%. In an undiagnosed Optum cohort at risk for NASH (n = 2.9 M), NASHmap predicted 31% of patients as NASH. This predicted NASH group had AST and ALT mean levels above normal range of 0-35 U/L, and 87% had HbA1C levels > 5.7%. Overall, NASHmap demonstrates good sensitivity in predicting NASH status in both datasets, and NASH patients misclassified as non-NASH by NASHmap have clinical profiles closer to non-NASH patients.

Development of a novel machine learning model to predict presence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a computer model to predict patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) using machine learning (ML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study utilized two databases: a) the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) adult database (2004-2009), and b) the Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (2007-2018), a real-world dataset representative of common electronic health records in the United States. We developed an ML model to predict NASH, using confirmed NASH and non-NASH based on liver histology results in the NIDDK dataset to train the model. RESULTS: Models were trained and tested on NIDDK NAFLD data (704 patients) and the best-performing models evaluated on Optum data (~3,000,000 patients). An eXtreme Gradient Boosting model (XGBoost) consisting of 14 features exhibited high performance as measured by area under the curve (0.82), sensitivity (81%), and precision (81%) in predicting NASH. Slightly reduced performance was observed with an abbreviated feature set of 5 variables (0.79, 80%, 80%, respectively). The full model demonstrated good performance (AUC 0.76) to predict NASH in Optum data. DISCUSSION: The proposed model, named NASHmap, is the first ML model developed with confirmed NASH and non-NASH cases as determined through liver biopsy and validated on a large, real-world patient dataset. Both the 14 and 5-feature versions exhibit high performance. CONCLUSION: The NASHmap model is a convenient and high performing tool that could be used to identify patients likely to have NASH in clinical settings, allowing better patient management and optimal allocation of clinical resources.

Early View of the Effectiveness of New Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) Regimens in Patients with Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of all-oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens in the treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). This study assessed real-world effectiveness of two recently approved regimens; paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir; dasabuvir (3D), and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in patients with HCV genotype 1. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data (IMS Health Patient-Centric Data Warehouse/Medivo database) from October 1, 2013 to August 14, 2015 was conducted. Patients ≥19 years of age with a HCV genotype 1 infection, a prescription fill for 3D or SOF/LDV, and ≥1 HCV viral load (VL) assessment from weeks 4-30 post-treatment were selected for analysis. Percentages of patients achieving sustained virologic response (SVR; defined as HCV RNA ≤43 IU/mL) were determined. Unadjusted SVR rates were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact tests. SVR rates were also assessed using multivariate regression with adjustment for age group, sex, and treatment history. Analyses were repeated for a subset of patients with VL assessment from 12 to 30 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: A total of 1707 (44 3D and 1663 SOF/LDV) patients were included. The majority (60%) were male, 49% were aged 55-64 years, and 97% were treatment-naïve 1 year prior to index. The unadjusted relative risk (RR) for achieving SVR in patients treated with SOF/LDV compared with 3D was 0.98%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.02. After adjusting for the baseline covariates, the RR was 0.98%, 95% CI: 0.94-1.03. CONCLUSIONS: In this early view of real-world data, effectiveness of all-oral DAA regimens in HCV genotype 1 patients was concordant with results from registration trials. SVR rates were similar for the two regimens. Further studies are needed to confirm these results. FUNDING: AbbVie, Inc.

Evidence-based review of gastrointestinal bleeding in the chronic kidney disease patient.

Patients with end-stage renal disease are more likely to suffer from gastrointestinal (GI) problems, including bleeding from upper and lower sources. Peptic ulcer disease is the most common cause of upper GI bleeding, and although there is some debate in the literature regarding whether the frequency of ulcer disease is higher in patients with kidney disease, it is well established that outcomes are worse in patients with compromised renal function. Angioectasias can be found throughout the GI tract and are another common cause of bleeding; management can be divided into localized endoscopic therapy and systemic hormonal treatment, or surgery for refractory cases. The most frequent causes of lower GI bleeding in this population, in addition to angioectasias, are diverticulosis, hemorrhoids, and ischemic colitis.

Endoluminal bariatric techniques.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2011 using the keywords "bariatric," "endoscopic," "intragastric balloon," "duodenojejunal bypass sleeve," and "transoral gastroplasty." Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

GI endoscopes.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through September 2010 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words "gastroscope," "colonoscope," "echoendoscope," "duodenoscope," "choledochoscope," "ultraslim endoscope," "variable stiffness colonoscope," and "wide-angle colonoscope." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

U.S. multicenter pilot study of daily consensus interferon (CIFN) plus ribavirin for "difficult-to-treat" HCV genotype 1 patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 (HCV-1) and difficult-to-treat characteristics respond poorly to pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin (RBV), and could benefit from an interferon with increased activity (consensus interferon or CIFN), favorable viral kinetics from daily dosing, and a longer duration of therapy. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the efficacy and safety of daily CIFN + RBV for initial treatment of patients with HCV-1 infection. METHODS: Patients with difficult-to-treat characteristics (92% male, 33% African American, 78% Veterans Affairs [VA]; 67% high viral load, 59% stage 3-4 fibrosis, and mean weight of 204 lbs) were enrolled at seven VA and two community medical centers. They were randomized to daily CIFN (15 mcg/day SQ) and RBV (1-1.2 g/d PO) given for either 52 weeks (group A, n = 33) or 52-72 weeks (from time of viral response +48 weeks) (group B, n = 31). RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis for treatment groups A and B demonstrated 33% (11/33) and 32% (10/31) sustained virologic response (SVR), respectively. Only 2/31 patients in group B received more than 52 weeks of treatment. The overall group demonstrated a 31% (20/64) rapid virologic response rate (RVR), 54% (34/64) end of treatment virologic response and a 33% (21/64) SVR. Patients with RVR at 4 weeks, early virologic response from 8-12 weeks, and late virologic response from 16-24 weeks demonstrated SVR of 75% (15/20), 31% (4/13), and 22% (2/9), respectively. Overall early non-protocol discontinuation occurred in 26/64 (40%) patients. CONCLUSION: Daily CIFN and ribavirin for initial treatment of HCV-1 patients has potential for achieving a relatively high RVR rate, but discontinuations are frequent and successful use of this regimen is highly dependent on adequate patient support to maintain adherence.

Computer-assisted personalized sedation.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic, and a MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience; U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 using the keywords "computer," "computerized," "computer-assisted," "sedation," "propofol." Reports on Emerging Technology are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technology are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Automated endoscope reprocessors.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2010 for articles related to automated endoscope reprocessors, using the words endoscope reprocessing, endoscope cleaning, automated endoscope reprocessors, and high-level disinfection. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Endoscopic tattooing.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 for articles related to endoscopic tattooing by using the Keywords tattooing, colonic, endoscopic, India ink, indocyanine green in different search term combinations. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Minimizing occupational hazards in endoscopy: personal protective equipment, radiation safety, and ergonomics.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, by using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to personal protection equipment by using the key words "personal protection equipment" (exp Protective Clothing/ or exp Protective Devices/ or exp Masks/ or exp Occupational Exposure/'') "infection control" paired with "Endoscopy." For the radiation section, the following key words were used: "radiation and endoscopy," "radiation and ERCP," and "radiation safety." For the ergonomics section, the following key words were used: "ergonomics of endoscopy," "endoscopist injury," "medical ergonomics," "endoscopy and musculoskeletal strain," "musculoskeletal injury and endoscopists," "occupational diseases and endoscopy," "cumulative trauma disorder and endoscopy," "repetitive strain injury and endoscopy." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Enteral nutrition access devices.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.