Background

Duodenal biopsies are commonly obtained during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) but are very often histopathologically normal. Therefore, a more strategic method for evaluating the duodenal mucosa and avoiding unnecessary biopsies is needed.

Aim

To examine the clinical utility of narrow band imaging (NBI) for evaluating duodenal villous morphology.

Methods

We performed a prospective cohort study of adult patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2013-2014 who were referred for EGD with duodenal biopsies. A staff endoscopist scored, in real-time, the NBI-based appearance of duodenal villi into one of three categories (normal, partial villous atrophy, or complete villous atrophy), captured ≥ 2 representative duodenal NBI images, and obtained mucosal biopsies therein. Images were then scored by an advanced endoscopist and gastroenterology fellow, and biopsies (gold standard) by a pathologist, in a masked fashion using the same three-category classification. Performing endoscopist, advanced endoscopist, and fellow NBI scores were compared to histopathology to calculate performance characteristics [sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy]. Inter-rater agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa.

Results

112 patients were included. The most common referring indications were dyspepsia (47%), nausea (23%), and suspected celiac disease (14%). Duodenal histopathology scores were: 84% normal, 11% partial atrophy, and 5% complete atrophy. Performing endoscopist NBI scores were 79% normal, 14% partial atrophy, and 6% complete atrophy compared to 91%, 5%, and 4% and 70%, 24%, and 6% for advanced endoscopist and fellow, respectively. NBI performed favorably for all raters, with a notably high (92%-100%) NPV. NBI score agreement was best between performing endoscopist and fellow (κ = 0.65).

Conclusion

NBI facilitates accurate, non-invasive evaluation of duodenal villi. Its high NPV renders it especially useful for foregoing biopsies of histopathologically normal duodenal mucosa.

Introduction

Statistical literacy is essential in clinical and translational science (CTS). Statistical competencies have been published to guide coursework design and selection for graduate students in CTS. Here, we describe common elements of graduate curricula for CTS and identify gaps in the statistical competencies.

Methods

We surveyed statistics educators using e-mail solicitation sent through four professional organizations. Respondents rated the degree to which 24 educational statistical competencies were included in required and elective coursework in doctoral-level and master's-level programs for CTS learners. We report competency results from institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), reflecting institutions that have invested in CTS training.

Results

There were 24 CTSA-funded respondents representing 13 doctoral-level programs and 23 master's-level programs. For doctoral-level programs, competencies covered extensively in required coursework for all doctoral-level programs were basic principles of probability and hypothesis testing, understanding the implications of selecting appropriate statistical methods, and computing appropriate descriptive statistics. The only competency extensively covered in required coursework for all master's-level programs was understanding the implications of selecting appropriate statistical methods. The least covered competencies included understanding the purpose of meta-analysis and the uses of early stopping rules in clinical trials. Competencies considered to be less fundamental and more specialized tended to be covered less frequently in graduate courses.

Conclusion

While graduate courses in CTS tend to cover many statistical fundamentals, learning gaps exist, particularly for more specialized competencies. Educational material to fill these gaps is necessary for learners pursuing these activities.

Introduction

It is increasingly essential for medical researchers to be literate in statistics, but the requisite degree of literacy is not the same for every statistical competency in translational research. Statistical competency can range from 'fundamental' (necessary for all) to 'specialized' (necessary for only some). In this study, we determine the degree to which each competency is fundamental or specialized.

Methods

We surveyed members of 4 professional organizations, targeting doctorally trained biostatisticians and epidemiologists who taught statistics to medical research learners in the past 5 years. Respondents rated 24 educational competencies on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 'fundamental' and 'specialized.'

Results

There were 112 responses. Nineteen of 24 competencies were fundamental. The competencies considered most fundamental were assessing sources of bias and variation (95%), recognizing one's own limits with regard to statistics (93%), identifying the strengths, and limitations of study designs (93%). The least endorsed items were meta-analysis (34%) and stopping rules (18%).

Conclusion

We have identified the statistical competencies needed by all medical researchers. These competencies should be considered when designing statistical curricula for medical researchers and should inform which topics are taught in graduate programs and evidence-based medicine courses where learners need to read and understand the medical research literature.

Introduction

The learning health system (LHS) aligns science, informatics, incentives, stakeholders, and culture for continuous improvement and innovation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute designed a K12 initiative to grow the number of LHS scientists. We describe approaches developed by 11 funded centers of excellence (COEs) to promote partnerships between scholars and health system leaders and to provide mentored research training.

Methods

Since 2018, the COEs have enlisted faculty, secured institutional resources, partnered with health systems, developed and implemented curricula, recruited scholars, and provided mentored training. Program directors for each COE provided descriptive data on program context, scholar characteristics, stakeholder engagement, scholar experiences with health system partnerships, roles following program completion, and key training challenges.

Results

To date, the 11 COEs have partnered with health systems to train 110 scholars. Nine (82%) programs partner with a Veterans Affairs health system and 9 (82%) partner with safety net providers. Clinically trained scholars (n = 87; 79%) include 70 physicians and 17 scholars in other clinical disciplines. Non-clinicians (n = 29; 26%) represent diverse fields, dominated by population health sciences. Stakeholder engagement helps scholars understand health system and patient/family needs and priorities, enabling opportunities to conduct embedded research, improve outcomes, and grow skills in translating research methods and findings into practice. Challenges include supporting scholars through roadblocks that threaten to derail projects during their limited program time, ranging from delays in access to data to COVID-19-related impediments and shifts in organizational priorities.

Conclusions

Four years into this novel training program, there is evidence of scholars' accomplishments, both in traditional academic terms and in terms of moving along career trajectories that hold the potential to lead and accelerate transformational health system change. Future LHS training efforts should focus on sustainability, including organizational support for scholar activities.

Background & aims

Standardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings.

Methods

We collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y).

Results

Seven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15.

Conclusions

We developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263.

Background & aims

It is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission.

Methods

Between April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score <20 (range, 0-100); histologic remission was defined as a peak count of <20 eosinophils/mm(2) in a high-power field (corresponds to approximately <5 eosinophils/median high-power field); and endoscopic remission as absence of white exudates, moderate or severe rings, strictures, or combination of furrows and edema. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission.

Results

Of the study subjects, 111 were in clinical remission (41.3%), 79 were in endoscopic remission (29.7%), and 75 were in histologic remission (27.9%). When the symptom score was used as a continuous variable, patients in endoscopic, histologic, and combined (endoscopic and histologic remission) remission were detected with area under the curve values of 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67, respectively. A symptom score of 20 identified patients in endoscopic remission with 65.1% accuracy and histologic remission with 62.1% accuracy; a symptom score of 15 identified patients with both types of remission with 67.7% accuracy.

Conclusions

In patients with EoE, endoscopic or histologic remission can be identified with only modest accuracy based on symptoms alone. At any given time, physicians cannot rely on lack of symptoms to make assumptions about lack of biologic disease activity in adults with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00939263.

Background & aims

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE.

Methods

For the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8).

Results

The distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11).

Conclusion

Assessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112.