Validation of a new optical diagnosis training module to improve dysplasia characterization in inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter international study

Background and Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increases risk of dysplasia and colorectal cancer. Advanced endoscopic techniques allow for the detection and characterization of IBD dysplastic lesions, but specialized training is not widely available. We aimed to develop and validate an online training platform to improve the detection and characterization of colonic lesions in IBD: OPtical diagnosis Training to Improve dysplasia Characterization in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (OPTIC-IBD). Methods: We designed a web-based learning module that includes surveillance principles, optical diagnostic methods, approach to characterization, and classifications of colonic lesions using still images and videos. We invited gastroenterologists from Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom with a wide range of experience. Participants reviewed 24 educational videos of IBD colonic lesions, predicted histology, and rated their confidence. The primary endpoint was to improve accuracy in detecting dysplastic lesions after training on the platform. Furthermore, participants were randomized 1:1 to get additional training or not, with a final assessment occurring after 60 days. Diagnostic performance for dysplasia and rater confidence were measured. Results: A total of 117 participants completed the study and were assessed for the primary endpoint. Diagnostic accuracy improved from 70.8% to 75.0% (P = .002) after training, with the greatest improvements seen in less experienced endoscopists. Improvements in both accuracy and confidence were sustained after 2 months of assessment, although the group randomized to receive additional training did not improve further. Similarly, participants’ confidence in characterizing lesions significantly improved between before and after the course (P < .001), and it was sustained after 2 months of assessment. Conclusions: The OPTIC-IBD training module demonstrated that an online platform could improve participants’ accuracy and confidence in the optical diagnosis of dysplasia in patients with IBD. The training platform can be widely available and improve endoscopic care for people with IBD

The Liverpool alcohol-related liver disease algorithm identifies twice as many emergency admissions compared to standard methods when applied to Hospital Episode Statistics for England

BackgroundEmergency admissions in England for alcohol-related liver disease (ArLD) have increased steadily for decades. Statistics based on administrative data typically focus on the ArLD-specific code as the primary diagnosis and are therefore at risk of excluding ArLD admissions defined by other coding combinations.AimTo deploy the Liverpool ArLD Algorithm (LAA), which accounts for alternative coding patterns (e.g., ArLD secondary diagnosis with alcohol/liver-related primary diagnosis), to national and local datasets in the context of studying trends in ArLD admissions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe applied the standard approach and LAA to Hospital Episode Statistics for England (2013-21). The algorithm was also deployed at 28 hospitals to discharge coding for emergency admissions during a common 7-day period in 2019 and 2020, in which eligible patient records were reviewed manually to verify the diagnosis and extract data.ResultsNationally, LAA identified approximately 100% more monthly emergency admissions from 2013 to 2021 than the standard method. The annual number of ArLD-specific admissions increased by 30.4%. Of 39,667 admissions in 2020/21, only 19,949 were identified with standard approach, an estimated admission cost of £70 million in under-recorded cases. Within 28 local hospital datasets, 233 admissions were identified using the standard approach and a further 250 locally verified cases using the LAA (107% uplift). There was an 18% absolute increase in ArLD admissions in the seven-day evaluation period in 2020 versus 2019. There were no differences in disease severity or mortality, or in the proportion of admissions with decompensation of cirrhosis or alcoholic hepatitis.ConclusionsThe LAA can be applied successfully to local and national datasets. It consistently identifies approximately 100% more cases than the standard coding approach. The algorithm has revealed the true extent of ArLD admissions. The pandemic has compounded a long-term rise in ArLD admissions and mortality

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

P482 Safety and efficacy of ustekinumab for Crohn’s disease in the elderly population

Abstract Background The rising incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) worldwide and an ageing population has led to a marked increase in elderly IBD patients. Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are associated with an increased risk of serious infections and treatment discontinuation among elderly IBD patients but little is known about non anti-TNF biologics in this cohort. We aimed to examine safety and efficacy of ustekinumab in elderly Crohn’s disease (CD) patients. Methods Patients ≥60 years old commencing ustekinumab for CD were included in this retrospective multi-centre cohort study. We gathered data on adverse events, Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) and concomitant steroid therapy. The primary outcome was serious infections, defined as requiring hospitalisation. Efficacy was assessed by serial HBI measurement and treatment persistence. Results 70 patients were included, with a median age of 68 years (range 60–87), a male:female ratio of 9:5 and a median Charlson co-morbidity index of 4 (range 2–9). 44 (62.9%) had prior anti-TNF exposure and 15 (21.4%) previous vedolizumab. Median treatment duration was 12 months (range 2–48), with a total of 84 patient years. 31 patients (41.3%) had steroids at initiation, and 33 (47.1%) required a course of steroids at a later date. Seven patients (10%) had a combined 9 serious infections, of which 1 was life threatening requiring organ support. Incidence of serious infections was 0.107 per patient year. A further 18 patients had a combined 22 non-severe infections (Table 1). The overall infection rate was 0.417 per patient year. Charlson co-morbidity index was numerically higher among those who developed severe infections (median 5, range 3–7 vs. median 4, range 2–9, P=NS). 3 patients developed a malignancy; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, melanoma and prostate cancer. Mean HBI improved from 8.13 at baseline to 4.64 at 6 months and 4.10 at last follow up (both P&amp;lt;0.0001). Treatment persistence rate was 61.4% (N=43) and 36 (51.4%) were steroid-free. Reasons for discontinuation were primary non-response (42%), adverse event (32%), secondary loss of response (10%), malignancy (10%) and lack of funding (5%). Conclusion Ustekinumab was safe and effective in a cohort of elderly CD patients. Infections were mostly mild, not resulting in therapy discontinuation. The risk of serious infection was low at 0.107 per patient year of treatment. </jats:sec

The Liverpool alcohol-related liver disease algorithm identifies twice as many emergency admissions compared to standard methods when applied to Hospital Episode Statistics for England

Background: Emergency admissions in England for alcohol-related liver disease (ArLD) have increased steadily for decades. Statistics based on administrative data typically focus on the ArLD-specific code as the primary diagnosis and are therefore at risk of excluding ArLD admissions defined by other coding combinations. Aim: To deploy the Liverpool ArLD Algorithm (LAA), which accounts for alternative coding patterns (e.g., ArLD secondary diagnosis with alcohol/liver-related primary diagnosis), to national and local datasets in the context of studying trends in ArLD admissions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We applied the standard approach and LAA to Hospital Episode Statistics for England (2013–21). The algorithm was also deployed at 28 hospitals to discharge coding for emergency admissions during a common 7-day period in 2019 and 2020, in which eligible patient records were reviewed manually to verify the diagnosis and extract data. Results: Nationally, LAA identified approximately 100% more monthly emergency admissions from 2013 to 2021 than the standard method. The annual number of ArLD-specific admissions increased by 30.4%. Of 39,667 admissions in 2020/21, only 19,949 were identified with standard approach, an estimated admission cost of £70 million in under-recorded cases. Within 28 local hospital datasets, 233 admissions were identified using the standard approach and a further 250 locally verified cases using the LAA (107% uplift). There was an 18% absolute increase in ArLD admissions in the seven-day evaluation period in 2020 versus 2019. There were no differences in disease severity or mortality, or in the proportion of admissions with decompensation of cirrhosis or alcoholic hepatitis. Conclusions: The LAA can be applied successfully to local and national datasets. It consistently identifies approximately 100% more cases than the standard coding approach. The algorithm has revealed the true extent of ArLD admissions. The pandemic has compounded a long-term rise in ArLD admissions and mortality.</p

Validation of a new optical diagnosis training module to improve dysplasia characterization in inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter international study

Background and Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increases risk of dysplasia and colorectal cancer. Advanced endoscopic techniques allow for the detection and characterization of IBD dysplastic lesions, but specialized training is not widely available. We aimed to develop and validate an online training platform to improve the detection and characterization of colonic lesions in IBD: OPtical diagnosis Training to Improve dysplasia Characterization in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (OPTIC-IBD). Methods: We designed a web-based learning module that includes surveillance principles, optical diagnostic methods, approach to characterization, and classifications of colonic lesions using still images and videos. We invited gastroenterologists from Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom with a wide range of experience. Participants reviewed 24 educational videos of IBD colonic lesions, predicted histology, and rated their confidence. The primary endpoint was to improve accuracy in detecting dysplastic lesions after training on the platform. Furthermore, participants were randomized 1:1 to get additional training or not, with a final assessment occurring after 60 days. Diagnostic performance for dysplasia and rater confidence were measured. Results: A total of 117 participants completed the study and were assessed for the primary endpoint. Diagnostic accuracy improved from 70.8% to 75.0% (P = .002) after training, with the greatest improvements seen in less experienced endoscopists. Improvements in both accuracy and confidence were sustained after 2 months of assessment, although the group randomized to receive additional training did not improve further. Similarly, participants’ confidence in characterizing lesions significantly improved between before and after the course (P &lt; .001), and it was sustained after 2 months of assessment. Conclusions: The OPTIC-IBD training module demonstrated that an online platform could improve participants’ accuracy and confidence in the optical diagnosis of dysplasia in patients with IBD. The training platform can be widely available and improve endoscopic care for people with IBD. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04924543.

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.</p

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.</p