Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Although age is often used as a clinical risk stratification tool, recent data have suggested that adverse outcomes are driven by frailty rather than chronological age. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:In this nationwide cohort study, we assessed the prevalence of frailty, and factors associated with 30-day readmission and mortality among hospitalized IBD patients. METHODS:Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we examined all patients with IBD hospitalized from 2010 to 2014. Based on index admission, we defined IBD and frailty using previously validated ICD codes. We used univariable and multivariable regression to assess risk factors associated with all-cause 30-day readmission and 30-day readmission mortality. RESULTS:From 2010 to 2014, 1,405,529 IBD index admissions were identified, with 152,974 (10.9%) categorized as frail. Over this time period, the prevalence of frailty increased each year from 10.20% (27,594) in 2010 to 11.45% (33,507) in 2014. On multivariable analysis, frailty was an independent predictor of readmission (aRR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.14-1.17), as well as readmission mortality (aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.23) after adjusting for relevant clinical factors. Frailty also remained associated with readmission after stratification by IBD subtype, admission characteristics (surgical vs. non-surgical), age (patients ≥ 60 years old), and when excluding malnutrition, weight loss, and fecal incontinence as frailty indicators. Conversely, we found older age to be associated with a lower risk of readmission. CONCLUSIONS:Frailty, independent of age, comorbidities, and severity of admission, is associated with a higher risk of readmission and mortality among IBD patients, and is increasing in prevalence. Given frailty is a potentially modifiable risk factor, future studies prospectively assessing frailty within the IBD patient population are needed.

BACKGROUND:Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with COVID-19, but prevalence of co-infection with enteric pathogens is unknown. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:This study assessed the prevalence of enteric infections among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS:We evaluated 4973 hospitalized patients ≥ 18 years of age tested for COVID-19 from March 11 through April 28, 2020, at two academic hospitals. The primary exposure was a positive COVID-19 test. The primary outcome was detection of a gastrointestinal pathogen by PCR stool testing. RESULTS:Among 4973 hospitalized individuals, 311 were tested for gastrointestinal infections (204 COVID-19 positive, 107 COVID-19 negative). Patients with COVID-19 were less likely to test positive compared to patients without COVID-19 (10% vs 22%, p < 0.01). This trend was driven by lower rates of non-C.difficile infections (11% vs 22% in COVID-19 positive vs. negative, respectively, p = 0.04), but not C. difficile infection (5.1% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.33). On multivariable analysis, infection with COVID-19 remained significantly associated with lower odds of concurrent GI infection (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.97), again driven by reduced non-C.difficile infection. Testing for both C.difficile and non-C.difficile enteric infection decreased dramatically during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:Pathogens aside from C.difficile do not appear to be a significant contributor to diarrhea in COVID-19 positive patients.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the prevalence and risk factors for inappropriate discharge on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy started in the intensive care unit (ICU) for stress ulcer prophylaxis. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of adults initiated on treatment with a PPI in any of 9 affiliated ICUs from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. Patients were excluded if they had an appropriate long-term PPI indication. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify characteristics associated with discharge on treatment with an inappropriate PPI. RESULTS:Of 24,751 patients admitted to an ICU, 4127 were initiated on treatment with a new PPI, with 2467 (60%) lacking a long-term PPI indication. Of these 2467, a total of 1122 (45%) were continued on PPI therapy after transfer to the floor and 668 (27%) were discharged on PPI therapy. On multivariable analysis, risk factors for inappropriate discharge on PPI therapy included having an upper endoscopy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.66), admission to the surgical compared with medical ICU (aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.32-3.10), and discharge to a nursing home or rehabilitation facility (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.04-1.96; and aOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.62-3.24, respectively). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among patients started on treatment with a PPI in the ICU without an indication for outpatient PPI use, 27% (668 of 2467) were nonetheless discharged on PPI therapy. Medically complex and surgical ICU patients are at increased risk for receiving PPIs without appropriate documented indications, and careful review of medication lists at discharge should occur in these high-risk groups.

Introduction: Crohn's disease (CD) carries a major healthcare burden, costing over $10 billion a year in the United States. Strictures are a common complication of CD, emerging in over half of patients after 20 years from diagnosis, and requiring invasive interventions such as surgery which further increases healthcare costs. Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) has emerged as an alternative intervention in managing CD strictures. We determined the cost-effectiveness of EBD versus resection surgery for patients with short (<4-5cm) anastomotic or primary small or large bowel strictures.
Method(s): A microsimulation state-transition model simulated the benefits and risks of EBD and bowel resection surgery for patients with primary or anastomotic strictures due to CD. Our base case was a 40-year-old patient with CD who developed a stricture. Strategies included EBD or surgery as a patient's first procedure, after which they were allowed to receive either procedure based on probabilities of subsequent intervention derived from the literature. Our primary outcome was qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) over ten years, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (in 2021 $US) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses assessed model uncertainty.
Result(s): The EBD strategy cost $19,822 and resulted in 6.18 QALYs while the surgery strategy cost $41,358 and resulted in 6.37 QALYs. Surgery had an ICER of $113,332 per QALY, making EBD a cost-effective strategy. The median number of EBDs was 6 in the EBD strategy and 0 in the surgery strategy. The median number of surgeries was 2 in the surgery strategy and 1 in the EBD strategy. Of individuals who initially received EBD, 50.4% underwent subsequent surgery. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of requiring repeated interventions, surgery mortality (, 0.6%), and quality of life after interventions were the most influential parameters in our model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored EBD in 50.9% of iterations.
Conclusion(s): EBD, when feasible, is a cost-effective strategy for managing CD primary or anastomotic strictures. Sensitivity analyses show that differences in patient risk and quality of life after intervention can impact cost-effectiveness. The decision between EBD or surgery should be made considering cost-effectiveness, patient risks, and quality of life preferences

Introduction: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a 2-to 3-fold greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, with increased risk during hospitalization. However, recent evidence suggests that this increased risk persists post-discharge. As such, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of post-discharge VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized patients with IBD.
Method(s): A decision tree was used to compare inpatient prophylaxis alone versus 4 weeks of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over one year, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (in 2020 $US), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one VTE and VTE death were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess uncertainty within the model.
Result(s): Four-week post-discharge prophylaxis with rivaroxaban resulted in 1.68 higher QALYs per 1000 persons and an incremental cost of $185,778 per QALY as compared to no postdischarge prophylaxis (see Table). The NNT to prevent a single VTE was 78 individuals, while the NNT to prevent a single VTE-related death was 3190 individuals. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that higher baseline VTE risk>4.5% or decreased cost of rivaroxaban <=$280 can reduce the ICER to<$100,000/QALY (see Figure, Tornado Diagram showing main drivers of the ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored post-discharge prophylaxis in 30.5% of iterations
Conclusion(s): Four weeks of post-discharge VTE prophylaxis results in higher QALYs as compared to inpatient prophylaxis alone, and can prevent one post-discharge VTE among 78 patients with IBD. As such, post-discharge VTE prophylaxis in patients with IBD should be considered in a case-by-case scenario considering VTE risk profile, costs, and patient preference

BACKGROUND:Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who have Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have worse outcomes. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to determine whether such outcomes are the result of CDI or whether CDI occurs in patients who have more severe IBD. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients hospitalized for ≥ 2 IBD flares from 2010 to 2019. The primary outcome was time to IBD flare between hospitalizations. First, time to flare was compared between patients who were hospitalized for a flare complicated by CDI and subsequently for a CDI-negative flare (cohort A, denoted +/-) versus patients who were hospitalized for two CDI-negative flares (cohort B, -/-). Second, time between flares was compared within the subset of cohort A patients who had three flares (cohort C, -/+/-) before and after CDI. RESULTS:Time between flares was a median of 4 months (IQR 1-9) among 51 cohort A patients versus 12 months (IQR 6-38) among 51 cohort B patients (log-rank P < 0.01). In contrast, the median time between flares was similar within cohort C before and after CDI (log-rank P = 0.54). At time of the second IBD flare, patients in cohort A (+/-) were more likely to have moderate or severe disease compared to patients in cohort B (-/-). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with prior CDI had shorter time to subsequent IBD flare relative to their CDI-negative counterparts. This is not likely due to CDI itself because there was no difference in time between flares before versus after acquiring CDI. Rather, patients who acquire CDI may have more severe IBD.

BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend enteral nutrition (EN) within 48 h of admission to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) in appropriate patients. However, delayed EN is still common. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to identify risk factors for delayed EN ordering in the ICU and to examine its association with patient outcomes. METHODS:This was a retrospective study from 2010-2018. Adult patients were included if they were admitted to the medical ICU for >48 h, were appropriate for EN, and had an order for EN placed within 30 d of admission. The primary outcome was ordering of EN, classified as early if ordered within 48 h of ICU admission and otherwise as delayed. Propensity score matching was used to examine the relation between delayed EN and ICU-free days, and outcomes such as length of ICU admission, length of hospitalization during 30 d of follow-up, and mortality. RESULTS:A total of 738 (79%) patients received early EN and 196 (21%) received delayed EN. The exposures most strongly associated with delayed EN were order placement by a Doctor of Medicine compared with a dietitian [adjusted OR (aOR): 2.58; 95% CI: 1.57, 4.24] and use of vasopressors within 48 h of ICU admission (aOR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.59). After propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics, delayed EN ordering was significantly associated with fewer ICU-free days, longer ICU admissions, and longer hospitalizations, but not mortality, compared with early EN. CONCLUSIONS:Provider-level factors were associated with delayed ordering of EN which itself was associated with worse outcomes. Interventions directed at providers may increase timely EN in the ICU and improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Our understanding of outcomes and disease time course of COVID-19 in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms remains limited. In this study we characterize the disease course and severity of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal manifestations in a large, diverse cohort from the Unites States. METHODS:This retrospective study evaluated hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 between March 11 and April 28, 2020 at two affiliated hospitals in New York City. We evaluated the association between GI symptoms and death, and also explored disease duration, from symptom onset to death or discharge. RESULTS:Of 2804 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 1,084 (38.7%) patients with GI symptoms were younger (aOR for age ≥75, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and had more co-morbidities (aOR for modified Charlson comorbidity score ≥2, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48) compared to those without GI symptoms. Individuals with GI symptoms had better outcomes, with a lower likelihood of intubation (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79) and death (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87), after adjusting for clinical factors. These patients had a longer median disease course from symptom onset to discharge (13.8 vs 10.8 days, log-rank p = .048; among 769 survivors with available symptom onset time), which was driven by longer time from symptom onset to hospitalization (7.4 vs 5.4 days, log-rank P < .01). CONCLUSION:Hospitalized patients with GI manifestations of COVID-19 have a reduced risk of intubation and death, but may have a longer overall disease course driven by duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of autoimmune (AI) disease on the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, or death from COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of 186 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and April 15, 2020 at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The cohort included 62 patients with AI disease and 124 age- and sex-matched controls. The primary outcome was a composite of ICU admission, intubation, and death, with secondary outcome as time to in-hospital death. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, vital signs, and laboratory values were collected. Conditional logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess the association between AI disease and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.63). CONCLUSION:Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with AI disease did not have an increased risk of a composite outcome of ICU admission, intubation, or death.

OBJECTIVE:To examine associations between sociodemographic and mental health characteristics with household risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 outbreak. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional online survey analysed using univariable tests and a multivariable logistic regression model. SETTING/METHODS:The United States during the week of 30 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A convenience sample of 1965 American adults using Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Participants reporting household food insecurity prior to the pandemic were excluded from analyses. RESULTS:One thousand two hundred and fifty participants reported household food security before the COVID-19 outbreak. Among this subset, 41 % were identified as at risk for food insecurity after COVID-19, 55 % were women and 73 % were white. On a multivariable analysis, race, income, relationship status, living situation, anxiety and depression were significantly associated with an incident risk for food insecurity. Black, Asian and Hispanic/Latino respondents, respondents with an annual income <$100 000 and those living with children or others were significantly more likely to be newly at risk for food insecurity. Individuals at risk for food insecurity were 2·60 (95 % CI 1·91, 3·55) times more likely to screen positively for anxiety and 1·71 (95 % CI 1·21, 2·42) times more likely to screen positively for depression. CONCLUSIONS:An increased risk for food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic is common, and certain populations are particularly vulnerable. There are strong associations between being at risk for food insecurity and anxiety/depression. Interventions to increase access to healthful foods, especially among minority and low-income individuals, and ease the socioemotional effects of the outbreak are crucial to relieving the economic stress of this pandemic.