Impacts of COVID-19 on Appropriate Use of Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Decreasing low-value colonoscopy is critical to optimizing access for high-need patients, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as those created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that rates of screening colonoscopy overuse would decline during COVID compared to pre-COVID due to enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of constrained access. OBJECTIVE: To characterize impacts of COVID-19 on screening colonoscopy overuse DESIGN: Retrospective national cohort study using Veterans Health Administration administrative data PARTICIPANTS: Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy in Q4 2019 (pre-COVID) and Q4 2020 (COVID) at 109 endoscopy facilities MAIN MEASURES: Rates of screening colonoscopy overuse KEY RESULTS: 18,376 screening colonoscopies were performed pre-COVID, 19% (3,641) of which met overuse criteria. While only 9,360 screening colonoscopies were performed in Q4 2020, 25% met overuse criteria. Overall change in median facility-level overuse during COVID compared to pre-COVID was 6% (95%CI 5%-7%), with significant variability across facilities (IQR: 2%-11%). Of colonoscopies meeting overuse criteria, the top reason for overuse in both periods was screening colonoscopy performed <9 years after previous screening procedure (55% pre-COVID, 49% during COVID). The largest shifts in overuse category were in screening procedures performed <9 years after prior screening colonoscopy (-6% decline COVID vs. pre-COVID) and screening procedures performed in patients below average-risk screening age (i.e., age <40 (5% increase COVID compared to pre-COVID), age 40-44 (4% increase COVID vs. pre-COVID)). Within facility performance was stable over time; 83/109 facilities changed their performance by <=1 quartile during COVID compared to pre-COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pandemic-related resource constraints and enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of COVID-related backlogs, screening colonoscopy overuse rates remained roughly stable during COVID compared to pre-COVID, with continued variability across facilities. These data highlight the need for systematic and concerted efforts to address overuse, even in the face of strong external motivating factors.

Adoption of Extended-Interval Dosing of Single-Agent Pembrolizumab and Comparative Effectiveness vs Standard Dosing in Time-to-Treatment Discontinuation.

Importance: Extended-interval dosing of pembrolizumab (400 mg every 6 weeks) was approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2020 as an alternative to standard-interval dosing (200 mg every 3 weeks). Extended-interval dosing may enhance access, alleviate patient and health system financial toxicity, and improve patient quality of life, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither adoption nor effectiveness of extended interval in the US has been adequately described. Objective: To describe adoption of extended-interval dosing of pembrolizumab since its FDA approval and to measure its preliminary real-world effectiveness compared with standard-interval dosing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study that used data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a US-based, nationwide single-payer health system. Participants were veterans who were prescribed single-agent pembrolizumab within the VHA between April 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021. Patients receiving combinations of pembrolizumab and cytotoxic chemotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitors were excluded. A subcohort of veterans with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was also identified using claims-based codes. Exposures: Single-agent pembrolizumab at extended or standard intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number and proportion of single-agent pembrolizumab prescriptions that were extended compared with standard interval. Effectiveness was described in terms of time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and extended- to standard-interval pembrolizumab prescriptions were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 835 veterans (mean age [SD], 70.9 [8.7] years; 809 [96.9%] men) began single-agent pembrolizumab during the study period (all-diseases cohort), and of these, 234 (mean [SD] age, 71.6 [7.3] years; 225 [96.2%] men) had NSCLC (NSCLC cohort). Extended-interval adoption reached its steady state plateau of approximately 35% by January 2021; 65% of participants who began standard-interval single-agent pembrolizumab received only standard-interval dosing during the treatment course. In analysis consistent with the intention-to-treat principle, no differences in TTD were observed between standard- and extended-interval dosing in either the all-diseases cohort (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.00) or the NSCLC cohort (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.00). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found that extended-interval dosing comprised a minority of single-agent pembrolizumab prescriptions despite the FDA approval and its potential health system and public health benefits. The findings support the TTD equivalence of standard- and extended-interval pembrolizumab across indications, complementing clinical pharmacology and single-arm clinical trial data in melanoma. This study provides further support for extended-interval pembrolizumab dosing.

Planning and Reporting Effective Web-Based RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Panels: Literature Review and Preliminary Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a variant of the Delphi Method, was developed to synthesize existing evidence and elicit the clinical judgement of medical experts on the appropriate treatment of specific clinical presentations. Technological advances now allow researchers to conduct expert panels on the internet, offering a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional RAM. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently used a web-based RAM to validate clinical recommendations for de-intensifying routine primary care services. A substantial literature describes and tests various aspects of the traditional RAM in health research; yet we know comparatively less about how researchers implement web-based expert panels. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to understand how the web-based RAM process is currently used and reported in health research and (2) to provide preliminary reporting guidance for researchers to improve the transparency and reproducibility of reporting practices. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between 2009 and 2019 that used a web-based RAM to measure the appropriateness of medical care. Methodological data from each article were abstracted. The following categories were assessed: composition and characteristics of the web-based expert panels, characteristics of panel procedures, results, and panel satisfaction and engagement. RESULTS: Of the 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria and reviewed, only 42% (5/12) implemented the full RAM process with the remaining studies opting for a partial approach. Among those studies reporting, the median number of participants at first rating was 42. While 92% (11/12) of studies involved clinicians, 50% (6/12) involved multiple stakeholder types. Our review revealed that the studies failed to report on critical aspects of the RAM process. For example, no studies reported response rates with the denominator of previous rounds, 42% (5/12) did not provide panelists with feedback between rating periods, 50% (6/12) either did not have or did not report on the panel discussion period, and 25% (3/12) did not report on quality measures to assess aspects of the panel process (eg, satisfaction with the process). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting web-based RAM panels will continue to be an appealing option for researchers seeking a safe, efficient, and democratic process of expert agreement. Our literature review uncovered inconsistent reporting frameworks and insufficient detail to evaluate study outcomes. We provide preliminary recommendations for reporting that are both timely and important for producing replicable, high-quality findings. The need for reporting standards is especially critical given that more people may prefer to participate in web-based rather than in-person panels due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Type 2 Diabetes Management, Control and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Older US Veterans: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required a change in outpatient care delivery models, including shifting from in-person to virtual visits, which may have impacted care of vulnerable patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the changes in management, control, and outcomes in older people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) associated with the shift from in-person to virtual visits. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: In veterans aged ≥ 65 years with T2D, we assessed the rates of visits (in person, virtual), A1c measurements, antidiabetic deintensification/intensification, ER visits and hospitalizations (for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, other causes), and A1c level, in March 2020 and April-November 2020 (pandemic period). We used negative binomial regression to assess change over time (reference: pre-pandemic period, July 2018 to February 2020), by baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; > 2 vs. <= 2) and A1c level. KEY RESULTS: Among 740,602 veterans (mean age 74.2 [SD 6.6] years), there were 55% (95% CI 52-58%) fewer in-person visits, 821% (95% CI 793-856%) more virtual visits, 6% (95% CI 1-11%) fewer A1c measurements, and 14% (95% CI 10-17%) more treatment intensification during the pandemic, relative to baseline. Patients with CCI > 2 had a 14% (95% CI 12-16%) smaller relative increase in virtual visits than those with CCI <= 2. We observed a seasonality of A1c level and treatment modification, but no association of either with the pandemic. After a decrease at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a rebound in other-cause (but not hypo- and hyperglycemia-related) ER visits and hospitalizations from June to November 2020. CONCLUSION: Despite a shift to virtual visits and a decrease in A1c measurement during the pandemic, we observed no association with A1c level or short-term T2D-related outcomes, providing some reassurance about the adequacy of virtual visits. Further studies should assess the longer-term effects of shifting to virtual visits in different populations to help individualize care, improve efficiency, and maintain appropriate care while reducing overuse.