Fenglong Xie

Socioeconomic Status and Race are both Independently associated with Increased Hospitalization Rate among Crohn’s Disease Patients

Racial disparities are observed clinically in Crohn’s Disease (CD) with research suggesting African Americans (AA) have worse outcomes than Caucasian Americans (CA). The aim of this study is to assess whether socioeconomic status (SES) rather than race is the major predictor of worse outcomes. We designed a retrospective cohort study of 944 CD patients seen at our center. Patients’ billing zip codes were collected and average income and percent of population living above or below poverty level (PL) for each zip code calculated. Patients were separated by quartiles using average state income level and federal PL. Demographics and hospitalization rates were collected. Poison regression models estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for CD-related hospitalizations. Incidence rate (IR) of hospitalization per 100-person years for the lowest income group was 118 (CI 91.4–152.3), highest income group was 29 (CI 21.7–38.9), Above PL was 26.9 (25.9–28.9), Below PL was 35.9 (33.1–38.9), CA was 25.3 (23.7–27), and AA was 51.4 (46.8–56.3). IRR for a CD-related hospitalization for lowest income group was 2.01 (CI 1.34–3.01), for Below PL was 1.26 (CI 1.12–1.42), and for AAs was 1.88 (CI 1.66–2.12). SES and race are both associated with hospitalization among CD patients and need further investigation.

Comparative Effectiveness of Vedolizumab vs. Infliximab Induction Therapy in Ulcerative Colitis: Experience of a Real-World Cohort at a Tertiary Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center

Background Vedolizumab (VDZ), an adhesion molecule inhibitor and infliximab (IFX), a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, are both approved as first-line induction agents in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there are no head-to-head studies comparing the relative effectiveness of the two agents. Here we provide a real-world comparison of these two agents. Methods We conducted an ambidirectional cohort study of adult UC patients seen at our tertiary inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) center from 2012 to 2017. Each patient had moderately to severely active UC via partial Mayo score and was induced with IFX or VDZ. They were followed until assessment of clinical response. Poisson regression was used to calculate clinical response rates and rate ratios. Results Of 59 patients who met inclusion criteria, 27 and 32 patients were induced with IFX and VDZ, respectively. Totally, 18/27 (66.7%) patients induced with IFX vs. 24/32 (78.1%) patients induced with VDZ were clinical responders. Response rates per 100 person-weeks (PW) were similar for VDZ (5.21) and IFX (5.38). The effectiveness in terms of induction of clinical response (incidence rate ratio, IRR) was not statistically significant for VDZ vs. IFX (IRR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 - 1.77). Among TNF blocker naive patients, IRR was also not statistically significant between VDZ (6.74/100 PW) and IFX (6.48/100 PW) (IRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 - 2.29). Among TNF blocker experienced patients, there was a higher response rate for VDZ (4.52) vs. IFX (2.29) per 100 PW, but the IRR did not reveal statistical significance (IRR 1.97, 95% CI 0.45 - 8.63) due to small sample size of TNF blocker experienced patients who received IFX. Five patients developed severe infection or adverse reaction during IFX induction requiring exclusion, whereas no VDZ patients were excluded for this reason. Conclusions Our study revealed a higher proportion of patients who responded to VDZ vs. IFX; however when accounting for period between induction and assessment of clinical response, rates of clinical response were similar. A key difference between the two groups was the higher response rate in the VDZ group among TNF blocker experienced patients; however, a larger cohort is needed to further elaborate on this difference. VDZ held its own against IFX and this study strengthens its standing as a first-line agent among TNF blocker naive as well as TNF blocker experienced UC patients.

Impact of vitamin D on the hospitalization rate of Crohn's disease patients seen at a tertiary care center

AIM To study the association between vitamin D level and hospitalization rate in Crohn’s disease (CD) patients. METHODS We designed a retrospective cohort study using adult patients (> 19 years) with CD followed for at least one year at our inflammatory bowel disease center. Vitamin D levels were divided into: low mean vitamin D level (< 30 ng/mL) vs appropriate mean vitamin D level (30-100 ng/mL). Generalized Poisson Regression Models (GPR) for Rate Data were used to estimate partially adjusted and fully adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) of hospitalization among CD patients. We also examined IRRs for vitamin D level as a continuous variable. RESULTS Of the 880 CD patients, 196 patients with vitamin D level during the observation period were included. Partially adjusted model demonstrated that CD patients with a low mean vitamin D level were almost twice more likely to be admitted (IRR = 1.76, 95%CI: 1.38-2.24) compared to those with an appropriate vitamin D level. The fully adjusted model confirmed this association (IRR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.11-1.87). Partially adjusted model with vitamin D level as a continuous variable demonstrated, higher mean vitamin D level was associated with a 3% lower likelihood of admission with every unit (ng/mL) rise in mean vitamin D level (IRR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.96-0.98). The fully adjusted model confirmed this association (IRR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.97-0.99). CONCLUSION Normal or adequate vitamin D stores may be protective in the clinical course of CD. However, this role needs to be further characterized and understood.

Budesonide Use and Hospitalization Rate in Crohn’s Disease: Results From a Cohort at a Tertiary Care IBD Referral Center

Background Budesonide is generally not used for periods > 90 days in Crohn’s disease (CD). We sought to study the association between cumulative outpatient budesonide use in days and hospitalization rate in CD patients seen at our institution. Methods Using a retrospective cohort study design, we selected CD patients > 19 years old and followed for at least 1 year. Days of outpatient budesonide use were calculated by reviewing outpatient clinic notes. Treatment groups included patients who were not given budesonide, received budesonide from 1 to 90 days, and received budesonide > 90 days. We performed univariate analyses and developed generalized Poisson regression models for rate data to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for CD-related hospitalization. Results Of 767 CD patients, 664 did not receive budesonide, 45 received budesonide from 1 to 90 days, and 58 received budesonide for > 90 days. Incidence rates of hospitalization in patients who received no budesonide vs. 1 - 90 days of budesonide vs. > 90 days of budesonide were 31, 26, and 19 per 100 person-years, respectively. Adjusted models demonstrated that receiving outpatient budesonide from 1 to 90 days and for > 90 days was associated with a lower likelihood of being admitted for a CD exacerbation (1 - 90 days: IRR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65 - 1.10; > 90 days: IRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.56 - 0.91). Conclusions Outpatient budesonide use appears to be associated with a lower likelihood of a CD-related hospitalization, notably when used for > 90 days. This association needs to be further assessed before recommending this agent for routine use for > 90 days.