Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy. METHODS:Seventeen semi-structured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites. RESULTS:We identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:These results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers, but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person pre-colonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows. METHODS:We administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1-30, 31-60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout. RESULTS:Surveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1-30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31-60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Exposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.

Introduction: Digestive laboratory abnormalities related to COVID-19 have been previously described, but most reports came from single centers and findings have been conflicting. We conducted a multi-center study using data from three large urban VA centers (New York Harbor VA, New Orleans VA and Detroit VA) to examine the association between demographics and digestive laboratory values with mortality on index hospitalization among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19.
Method(s): We manually extracted data on individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2019 and June 2020 at the three facilities. For this analysis, data on demographics and seven digestive laboratory values (highest AST, ALT, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, and INR during admission, as well as lowest hemoglobin and platelets) were analyzed in relation to index hospitalization mortality. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a multivariable logistic regression model.
Result(s): Out of a total of 390 individuals who were hospitalized with COVID-19, 168 (43%) died and 222 survived. The median age of patients who died was higher than those who survived (75 vs. 69 years). The vast majority (94%) of patients were male. Black patients accounted for a higher proportion of those who died than those who survived (61% vs. 55%), whereas the opposite was true for Whites (26% vs. 31%) and Hispanics (9% vs. 12%). In the multivariable model (Table), mortality was associated with older age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.10), higher BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10), higher AST (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.004-1.02), lower ALT (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.996), higher alkaline phosphatase (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.02), and lower hemoglobin (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.97).
Conclusion(s): In this multicenter VA study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first half of 2020, overall mortality was 43%. For mortality during index hospitalization, we observed a positive association with age, BMI, AST, and alkaline phosphatase, and an inverse association with ALT and hemoglobin. Every 1 unit increase in hemoglobin was associated with 17% decreased odds of death. These findings suggest that commonly used digestive laboratory tests have prognostic significance for COVID-related survival

BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic Americans. Puerto Ricans are the second largest Hispanic subgroup in the USA and the largest in New York City, but little is known about predictors of colorectal cancer screening uptake in this population. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:We used the New York City Community Health Survey, a population-based telephone survey, to investigate predictors of up-to-date colonoscopy use over time among Puerto Ricans aged ≥ 50 years in NYC. METHODS:We assessed the association between sociodemographic and medical factors and up-to-date colonoscopy use (defined as colonoscopy within the last 10 years) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression over six time periods: 2003-2005, 2006-2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. RESULTS:On multivariable analysis, age ≥ 65 years (OR 1.64-1.93 over three periods) and influenza vaccination (OR 1.86-2.17 over five periods) were the two factors most consistently associated with up-to-date colonoscopy use. Individuals without a primary care provider (OR 0.38-0.50 over three periods) and who did not exercise (OR 0.49-0.52 over two periods) were significantly less likely to have an up-to-date colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS:Older age, influenza vaccination, having a primary care provider, and exercise are independent predictors of up-to-date colonoscopy use among Puerto Ricans in NYC. Interventions to improve screening colonoscopy uptake among Puerto Ricans should be targeted to those aged 50-64 years and who do not have a primary care provider.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers, with a high mortality-to-incidence ratio. It is uncertain whether developed nations may encounter an increasing burden of gastric cancer in young adults, as occurs for other cancers. Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer and compare the global incidence trends between younger (<40 years) and older (≥40 years) populations. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This population-based cohort study analyzed data from global and national cancer registries, including data from 1980 to 2018, with at least 15 calendar years of incidence and mortality data. Data on age-standardized incidence and mortality rates of gastric cancer among 48 countries were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, the National Cancer Institute, the Nordic Cancer Registries, and the World Health Organization Mortality Database. The 10-year incidence trend of gastric cancer was assessed by age and sex. The 2018 GLOBOCAN database was used for reporting the global incidence and mortality of gastric cancer, the most recent data available at the time of analysis. Analyses were performed between January 10, 2020, and March 20, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The average annual percent change (AAPC) of the incidence and mortality trends as evaluated by joinpoint regression analysis. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 1 033 701 new cases of gastric cancer and 782 685 related deaths were reported in 2018. Overall, the incidence of gastric cancer decreased in 29 countries, and mortality decreased in 41 countries. The age-standardized incidence of gastric cancer decreased from a range of 2.6 to 59.1 in 1980 to a range of 2.5 to 56.8 in 2018 per 100 000 persons. The overall age-standardized mortality rate changed from a range of 1.3 to 25.8 in 1980 to a range of 1.5 to 18.5 in 2018 per 100 000 persons, but increasing mortality was observed in Thailand (female: AAPC, 5.30; 95% CI, 4.38-6.23; P < .001; male: AAPC, 3.92; 95% CI, 2.14-5.74; P < .001). The incidence of gastric cancer decreased in most regions among individuals 40 years or older and increased in populations younger than 40 years in several countries, including Sweden (male: AAPC, 13.92; 95% CI, 7.16-21.11; P = .001), Ecuador (female: AAPC, 6.05; 95% CI, 1.40-10.92; P = .02), and the UK (male: AAPC, 4.27; 95% CI, 0.15-8.55; P = .04; female: AAPC, 3.60; 95% CI, 3.59-3.61; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this population-based cohort study, an increasing incidence of gastric cancer was observed in younger individuals in some countries, highlighting the need for more preventive strategies in younger populations. Future research should explore the reasons for these epidemiologic trends.

DESCRIPTION/METHODS:The purpose of this expert review is to describe the role of medications for the chemoprevention of colorectal neoplasia. Neoplasia is defined as precancerous lesions (e.g., adenoma and sessile serrated lesion) or cancer. The scope of this review excludes dietary factors and high-risk individuals with hereditary syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS:The best practice advice statements are based on a review of the literature to provide practical advice. A formal systematic review and rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation were not performed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: In individuals at average risk for CRC who are (1) younger than 70 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, (2) have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of at least 10%, and (3) not at high risk for bleeding, clinicians should use low-dose aspirin to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: In individuals with a history of CRC, clinicians should consider using aspirin to prevent recurrent colorectal neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: In individuals at average risk for CRC, clinicians should not use non-aspirin NSAIDs to prevent colorectal neoplasia because of a substantial risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, clinicians may consider using metformin to prevent colorectal neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: In individuals with CRC and type 2 diabetes, clinicians may consider using metformin to reduce mortality. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians should not use calcium or vitamin D (alone or together) to prevent colorectal neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should not use folic acid to prevent colorectal neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In individuals at average risk for CRC, clinicians should not use statins to prevent colorectal neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In individuals with a history of CRC, clinicians should not use statins to reduce mortality.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Whether patients with cirrhosis have increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the extent to which infection and cirrhosis increase the risk of adverse patient outcomes remain unclear. APPROACH AND RESULTS:We identified 88,747 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and May 14, 2020, in the Veterans Affairs (VA) national health care system, including 75,315 with no cirrhosis-SARS-CoV-2-negative (C0-S0), 9,826 with no cirrhosis-SARS-CoV-2-positive (C0-S1), 3,301 with cirrhosis-SARS-CoV-2-negative (C1-S0), and 305 with cirrhosis-SARS-CoV-2-positive (C1-S1). Patients were followed through June 22, 2020. Hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and death were modeled in time-to-event analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression. Patients with cirrhosis were less likely to test positive than patients without cirrhosis (8.5% vs. 11.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99). Thirty-day mortality and ventilation rates increased progressively from C0-S0 (2.3% and 1.6%) to C1-S0 (5.2% and 3.6%) to C0-S1 (10.6% and 6.5%) and to C1-S1 (17.1% and 13.0%). Among patients with cirrhosis, those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were 4.1 times more likely to undergo mechanical ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.12; 95% CI, 2.79-6.10) and 3.5 times more likely to die (aHR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.55-4.90) than those who tested negative. Among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with cirrhosis were more likely to be hospitalized (aHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.66), undergo ventilation (aHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.05-2.46) or die (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.18-2.30) than patients without cirrhosis. Among patients with cirrhosis and SARS-CoV-2 infection, the most important predictors of mortality were advanced age, cirrhosis decompensation, and high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. CONCLUSIONS:SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Incidence of early-onset (younger than 50 years of age) colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in many countries. Thus, elucidating the role of traditional CRC risk factors in early-onset CRC is a high priority. We sought to determine whether risk factors associated with late-onset CRC were also linked to early-onset CRC and whether association patterns differed by anatomic subsite. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Using data pooled from 13 population-based studies, we studied 3767 CRC cases and 4049 controls aged younger than 50 years and 23 437 CRC cases and 35 311 controls aged 50 years and older. Using multivariable and multinomial logistic regression, we estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the association between risk factors and early-onset CRC and by anatomic subsite. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .04). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:In this large study, we identified several nongenetic risk factors associated with early-onset CRC, providing a basis for targeted identification of those most at risk, which is imperative in mitigating the rising burden of this disease.