Citations

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk. Data are limited regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of ACS in patients with IBD. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with IBD admitted for ACS in the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample for 2005 to 2015 was conducted. We analyzed trends in IBD-ACS admissions and mortality, differences in risk profiles, management strategies, and in-hospital mortality between IBD-ACS and non-IBD ACS and between ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD). Results We studied 6,872,415 non-IBD ACS and 24,220 IBD-ACS hospitalizations (53% with CD). During the study period, the number of hospitalizations for IBD-ACS increased, particularly those related to CD. Compared with non-IBD ACS, patients with IBD-ACS had a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and similar rates of coronary angiography and revascularization. The in-hospital mortality rate was lower with IBD-ACS (3.9%) compared with non-IBD ACS (5.3%; odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.96; P = 0.011) and was stable between 2005 and 2015. Risk factors, ACS management strategies, and mortality were similar between CD and UC. Coagulopathy, weight loss, and gastrointestinal bleeding were more frequent in IBD-ACS and were strong independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions Hospitalizations for ACS in patients with IBD increased in recent years but death rates were stable. The ACS-related risk profiles and mortality were modestly favorable with IBD-ACS than with non-IBD ACS and were similar between CD and UC. Complications more frequently associated with IBD were strongly associated with mortality. These findings indicate that aggressive management of IBD and ACS comorbidities is required to improve outcomes.

AbstractObjectiveThe authors aimed to investigate the benefits and risks of catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT).BackgroundThe role of CDT in the management of DVT is evolving. Data on CDT versus anticoagulation alone in acute DVT is sparse.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies that compared CDT to anticoagulation alone in patients with acute DVT.ResultsWe included 11 studies (four randomized control trials [RCTs] and seven observational studies) with a total of 8,737 patients. During hospital stay, patients who received CDT had higher odds of major bleeding (2.5% vs. 1.6%; OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.07, 1.98], p = .02), blood transfusion (10.8% vs. 6.2%; OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.52, 2.13], p < .001), and thromboembolism (15.5% vs. 10%; OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.47, 1.91], p < .001) compared with anticoagulation alone. At 6‐month follow‐up, patients who received CDT had higher venous patency (71.1% vs. 37.7%; OR 5.49, 95% CI [2.63, 11.5], p < .001) and lower postthrombotic syndrome (PTS; 27% vs. 40.7%; OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.86], p = .02). During a mean follow‐up duration of 30.5 ± 28 months, CDT group continued to have higher venous patency (79.6% vs. 71.8%; OR 3.79, 95% CI [1.54, 9.32], p = .004) and lower PTS (44.7% vs. 50.5%; OR 0.43, 95% CI [0.23, 0.78], p = .006), but no difference in thromboembolism.ConclusionCompared with anticoagulation alone, CDT for patients with acute DVT was associated with a higher risk of complications, but a higher rate of venous patency and lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome at 2.5 years follow‐up.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

e16686 Background: Genetic alterations in the FGFR pathway are emerging as promising therapeutic targets in CCA. The clinical and molecular features of patients (pts) with CCA harboring FGFR genetic alterations are reported here. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed in pts with CCA who were found to have an FGFR alteration on tumor molecular profiling as part of routine care between 9/2007 and 12/2019. Data on demographics, risk factors, pathology, molecular characteristics, systemic therapies, radiographical response, time on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were collected in a multi-center collaborative effort across seven academic centers. Results: Among 135 pts with FGFR-altered CCA, the median age at diagnosis was 57 years old (range = 25-92 years), and 80 (59.3%) pts were female, 129 (95.6%) had intrahepatic CCA, and 6 (5.6%) had chronic HBV. At presentation, 28.2% of pts had resectable disease, including 65.0% with Stage I-II, 22.5% with Stage III, and 5.0% with Stage IV. At the time of initial diagnosis, CA19-9 was < 35U/mL in 42.6% of pts. Bone metastases were observed in 41 (30.6%) pts with advanced disease. FGFR2 fusions were the most common FGFR alteration (68.2%), followed by FGFR2 mutations (21.5%), FGFR3 mutations (3.7%), FGFR2 rearrangements (1.5%), FGFR1 amplification (1.5%), and FGFR2 amplification (1.5%). The most common FGFR2 fusion partners were BICC1 (28.3%), SORBS1 (4.4%), POC1B (3.3%), and TACC2 (3.3%). The median lines of palliative systemic therapies received was 3 (range = 0-8), and 40/135 (29.6%) pts received a liver-directed therapy. For the 55 (59.8%) pts with FGFR2 fusions who received gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line palliative systemic therapy, the median time on treatment was 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.1-9.3). The median OS from time of initial diagnosis was 36.1 months (95% CI: 28.3-51.6) in the FGFR2 fusion positive cohort. Among the 92 pts with FGFR2 fusions, 70 (76.1%) pts received an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial; 12 (17.1%) were subsequently treated with a second FGFR inhibitor, and 58.3% stayed on the second FGFR inhibitor for ≥4 months. Pts with a BICC1 fusion partner (n = 16) had an overall response rate of 42.9% on FGFR-selective inhibitors compared to 30.8% in non-BICC1 fusion partners (n = 54). Conclusions: Pts with CCA harboring FGFR alterations were found to have a high rate of normal CA19-9, high rate of bone metastases, and short median time on treatment on first-line palliative gemcitabine/cisplatin. Additional comparative studies are necessary to evaluate these findings.

2054 Background: Systematic reviews that summarize the toxicity of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) become outdated very soon after publication. Therefore, we reported results of a toxicity meta-analysis at 2019 ASCO meeting and informed the intent to create a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs combine human and machine effort and support rapid evidence synthesis and living clinical practice guidelines. Now, we report our experience maintaining a LSR on toxicity of ICIs. Methods: Steps include quarterly literature searches to identify new clinical trials reporting ICI-associated adverse events (AEs), AI-enabled screening of new citations which meet the inclusion criteria, automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform. Standard data formats and protocols were designed for inputting text, tables and graphics. Software was written to interpret these data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot and summary tables. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs and displays the associated output was designed. Results: The LSR is continuously updated incorporating toxicity data from new clinical trials as it becomes available. We have screened 8000 relevant citations and summarized the odds of Grade 3 or higher AEs and AEs of special interest in patient receiving ICIs. The results are updated on quarterly basis and are available online. The results are updated on quarterly basis and will be available on a website at the time of publication. Prototype with dummy data is available at this link . This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables and forest plots by type of cancer, name or mechanism (PD-1 or PD-L1) of ICI agent, single agent or combination, type of control arm, line of treatment and several other clinically relevant filters. For example, a user can instantaneously generate a meta-analysis summarizing the risk of colitis or pneumonitis in metastatic lung cancer trials with pembrolizmuab. Conclusions: This LSR engine can prospectively synthesize toxicity data from ICI trials in an efficient manner providing accurate and timely information for advanced clinical decision support at point-of-care. Efforts are ongoing to improve efficiency of screening, improve AI-enabled processes for automated screening and data abstraction, and test across multiple clinical questions.

Background Past research in population health trends has shown that injuries form a substantial burden of population health loss. Regular updates to injury burden assessments are critical. We report Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study estimates on morbidity and mortality for all injuries. Methods We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Findings In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505). Interpretation Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.