Background

Prior estimates suggest that up to 40% of the US general population (GP) report symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, symptoms in the GP versus patients seeking care for gastrointestinal (GI) complaints have not been compared. We estimated the prevalence and severity of GERD symptoms in the GP versus GI patients, and identified predictors of GERD severity. We hypothesized that similar to functional GI disorders, psychosocial factors would predict symptom severity in GERD as much, or perhaps more, than care-seeking behavior alone.

Methods

We compared the prevalence of heartburn and regurgitation between a sample from the US GP and patients seeking GI specialty care. We compared GERD severity between groups using the NIH PROMIS(®) GERD scale. We then performed multivariable regression to identify predictors of GERD severity.

Results

There was no difference in the prevalence of heartburn between the GP and patient groups (59 vs. 59%), but regurgitation was more common in patients versus GP (46 vs. 39%; p = 0.004). In multivariable regression, having high visceral anxiety (p < 0.001) and being divorced or separated (p = 0.006) were associated with higher GERD severity.

Conclusions

More than half of a GP sample reports heartburn-higher than previous series and no different from GI patients. Although regurgitation was more prevalent in patients versus the GP, there was no difference in GERD severity between groups after adjusting for other factors; care seeking in GERD appears related to factors beyond symptoms, including visceral anxiety.

Objective

Gastrointestinal (GI) involvement is common in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) GI symptom item bank captures upper and lower GI symptoms (reflux, disrupted swallowing, nausea/vomiting, belly pain, gas/bloating/flatulence, diarrhea, constipation, and fecal incontinence). The objective of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of the PROMIS GI bank in SSc.

Methods

A total of 167 patients with SSc were administered the PROMIS GI bank and the University of California, Los Angeles, Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium Gastrointestinal Scale (GIT 2.0) instrument. GIT 2.0 is a multi-item instrument that measures SSc-associated GI symptoms. Product-moment correlations and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the PROMIS GI scales with the GIT 2.0 symptom scales were used to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity.

Results

Patients with SSc GI involvement had PROMIS GI scale scores 0.2-0.7 SD worse than the US general population. Correlations among scales measuring the same domains for the PROMIS GI and GIT 2.0 measures were large, ranging from 0.61 to 0.87 (average r = 0.77). The average correlation between different symptom scales was 0.22, supporting discriminant validity.

Conclusion

This study provides support for the construct validity of the PROMIS GI scales in SSc. Future research is needed to assess the responsiveness to change of these scales in patients with SSc.

OBJECTIVE: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are associated with significant morbidity and economic burden. The variable course of IBD creates a need for predictors of clinical outcomes and health resource utilization (HRU) to guide treatment decisions. We aimed to identify clinical, serological or genetic markers associated with inpatient resource utilization in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohns disease (CD). METHODS: Patients with IBD with available genetic and serological data who had at least one emergency department visit or hospitalization in a 3-year period were included. The primary outcome measure was HRU, as measured by the All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group classification system. Univariate and multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to identify the associations with HRU. RESULTS: Altogether 858 (562 CD and 296 UC) patients were included. Anti-CBir1 seropositivity (P = 0.002, effect size [ES]: 0.762, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.512-1.012) and low socioeconomic status (P = 0.005, ES: 1.620 [95% CI 1.091-2.149]) were independently associated with a high HRU. CD diagnosis (P = 0.006, ES: -0.701 [95% CI -0.959 to -0.443]) was independently associated with a low inpatient HRU. CONCLUSION: In patients with IBD who required at least one emergency department visit or hospitalization, anti-CBir1 antibody status may be a useful biomarker of HRU when formulating management strategies to reduce disease complications and resource utilization.

Objectives

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) is a standardized set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that cover physical, mental, and social health. The aim of this study was to develop the NIH PROMIS gastrointestinal (GI) symptom measures.

Methods

We first conducted a systematic literature review to develop a broad conceptual model of GI symptoms. We complemented the review with 12 focus groups including 102 GI patients. We developed PROMIS items based on the literature and input from the focus groups followed by cognitive debriefing in 28 patients. We administered the items to diverse GI patients (irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), systemic sclerosis (SSc), and other common GI disorders) and a census-based US general population (GP) control sample. We created scales based on confirmatory factor analyses and item response theory modeling, and evaluated the scales for reliability and validity.

Results

A total of 102 items were developed and administered to 865 patients with GI conditions and 1,177 GP participants. Factor analyses provided support for eight scales: gastroesophageal reflux (13 items), disrupted swallowing (7 items), diarrhea (5 items), bowel incontinence/soilage (4 items), nausea and vomiting (4 items), constipation (9 items), belly pain (6 items), and gas/bloat/flatulence (12 items). The scales correlated significantly with both generic and disease-targeted legacy instruments, and demonstrate evidence of reliability.

Conclusions

Using the NIH PROMIS framework, we developed eight GI symptom scales that can now be used for clinical care and research across the full range of GI disorders.

Objectives

Because gastrointestinal (GI) illnesses can cause physical, emotional, and social distress, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used to guide clinical decision making, conduct research, and seek drug approval. It is important to develop a mechanism for identifying, categorizing, and evaluating the over 100 GI PROs that exist. Here we describe a new, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported, online PRO clearinghouse-the GI-PRO database.

Methods

Using a protocol developed by the NIH Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)), we performed a systematic review to identify English-language GI PROs. We abstracted PRO items and developed an online searchable item database. We categorized symptoms into content "bins" to evaluate a framework for GI symptom reporting. Finally, we assigned a score for the methodological quality of each PRO represented in the published literature (0-20 range; higher indicates better).

Results

We reviewed 15,697 titles (κ>0.6 for title and abstract selection), from which we identified 126 PROs. Review of the PROs revealed eight GI symptom "bins": (i) abdominal pain, (ii) bloat/gas, (iii) diarrhea, (iv) constipation, (v) bowel incontinence/soilage, (vi) heartburn/reflux, (vii) swallowing, and (viii) nausea/vomiting. In addition to these symptoms, the PROs covered four psychosocial domains: (i) behaviors, (ii) cognitions, (iii) emotions, and (iv) psychosocial impact. The quality scores were generally low (mean 8.88 ± 4.19; 0 (min)-20 (max). In addition, 51% did not include patient input in developing the PRO, and 41% provided no information on score interpretation.

Conclusions

GI PROs cover a wide range of biopsychosocial symptoms. Although plentiful, GI PROs are limited by low methodological quality. Our online PRO library (www.researchcore.org/gipro/) can help in selecting PROs for clinical and research purposes.

Objectives

Because gastrointestinal (GI) illnesses can cause physical, emotional, and social distress, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used to guide clinical decision making, conduct research, and seek drug approval. It is important to develop a mechanism for identifying, categorizing, and evaluating the over 100 GI PROs that exist. Here we describe a new, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported, online PRO clearinghouse-the GI-PRO database.

Methods

Using a protocol developed by the NIH Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)), we performed a systematic review to identify English-language GI PROs. We abstracted PRO items and developed an online searchable item database. We categorized symptoms into content "bins" to evaluate a framework for GI symptom reporting. Finally, we assigned a score for the methodological quality of each PRO represented in the published literature (0-20 range; higher indicates better).

Results

We reviewed 15,697 titles (κ>0.6 for title and abstract selection), from which we identified 126 PROs. Review of the PROs revealed eight GI symptom "bins": (i) abdominal pain, (ii) bloat/gas, (iii) diarrhea, (iv) constipation, (v) bowel incontinence/soilage, (vi) heartburn/reflux, (vii) swallowing, and (viii) nausea/vomiting. In addition to these symptoms, the PROs covered four psychosocial domains: (i) behaviors, (ii) cognitions, (iii) emotions, and (iv) psychosocial impact. The quality scores were generally low (mean 8.88 ± 4.19; 0 (min)-20 (max). In addition, 51% did not include patient input in developing the PRO, and 41% provided no information on score interpretation.

Conclusions

GI PROs cover a wide range of biopsychosocial symptoms. Although plentiful, GI PROs are limited by low methodological quality. Our online PRO library (www.researchcore.org/gipro/) can help in selecting PROs for clinical and research purposes.

An international symposium entitled "Acute pancreatitis: progress and challenges" was held on November 5, 2014 at the Hapuna Beach Hotel, Big Island, Hawaii, as part of the 45th Anniversary Meeting of the American Pancreatic Association and the Japanese Pancreas Society. The course was organized and directed by Drs. Stephen Pandol, Tooru Shimosegawa, Robert Sutton, Bechien Wu, and Santhi Swaroop Vege. The symposium objectives were to: (1) highlight current issues in management of acute pancreatitis, (2) discuss promising treatments, (3) consider development of quality indicators and improved measures of disease activity, and (4) present a framework for international collaboration for development of new therapies. This article represents a compilation and adaptation of brief summaries prepared by speakers at the symposium with the purpose of broadly disseminating information and initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and effectiveness of available biologics for post-operative prophylaxis in Crohns disease (CD) is uncertain. Drug persistence may serve as a real-world proxy for tolerability and effectiveness. We evaluated the comparative persistence of non-TNF and TNF antagonists for post-operative prophylaxis and their comparative effectiveness for preventing early endoscopic post-operative recurrence (POR). METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of surgically naïve CD subjects undergoing ileocecal or small bowel resection between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2021 and prescribed a biologic for post-operative prophylaxis. We compared the risk of prophylaxis failure (requiring recurrent surgery or discontinuation of therapy due to persistent POR despite optimized drug level or dose escalation, immunogenicity, and/or adverse event) and early endoscopic POR (Rutgeerts score ≥ i2 within 15 months postoperatively) between non-TNF and TNF antagonist prophylaxis using Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression, respectively, adjusting for demographic and disease characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 291 subjects (81% TNF antagonists). After multivariable adjustment, non-TNF antagonist prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of prophylaxis failure than TNF antagonists (hazard ratio 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.13-0.53]). Prophylaxis with non-TNF and TNF antagonists had similar risk of early endoscopic POR (odds ratio 0.66; 95% CI [0.32-1.36]). Stratifying the non-TNF antagonists by anti-integrin and anti-IL12/23 yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of surgically naïve CD subjects prescribed a biologic for post-operative prophylaxis, non-TNF antagonists had greater persistence than TNF antagonists with similar risk for early endoscopic POR. If confirmed by large, prospective studies, these findings can inform post-operative management strategies in CD.

Background

The NIH-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Gastrointestinal (GI) Symptoms scales were developed to assess patients' GI symptoms in clinical settings.

Aims

To assess responsiveness to change and provide minimally important difference (MID) estimates for the PROMIS GI Symptoms scales.

Methods

A sample of 256 GI outpatients self-administered the eight PROMIS GI Symptoms scales (gastroesophageal reflux, disrupted swallowing, diarrhea, bowel incontinence/soilage, nausea and vomiting, constipation, belly pain, and gas/bloating/flatulence) at two visits. Patient self-reported and physician-reported assessments of the subjects' overall GI condition were employed as change anchors. In addition, we prospectively assessed change at both visits using a GI-symptom anchor, the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS). Responsiveness to change was assessed using F-statistics. The minimally changed group was those somewhat better or somewhat worse on the retrospective anchors and changing by one category on the modified GSRS (e.g., from slight to mild discomfort to moderate to moderately severe discomfort).

Results

Responsiveness to change was statistically significant for 6 of 8 PROMIS scales using the self-report GI anchor, 3 of 8 scales using the physician-reported anchor, and 5 of 5 scales using the corresponding GSRS scales as anchors. The MID estimates for scales for improvement and worsening were about 0.5-0.6 SD using the GSRS anchor and generally larger in magnitude than the change for the "about the same" group.

Conclusions

The responsiveness and MID estimates provided here for the PROMIS GI Symptoms scales can aid in scale score interpretation in clinical trials and observational studies.