Search

Background Data from the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggested that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at higher risk of being infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than the general population and that a worse prognosis is not associated with immunomodulatory drugs, with the possible exception of systemic steroids. Methods This retrospective, observational study included consecutive IBD patients from the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SN-IBD) cohort who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (polymerase chain reaction–confirmed presence of the viral genome in a nasopharyngeal swab) during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave (September 2020 to December 2020). Data regarding demographics, IBD features and treatments, and comorbidities were analyzed in correlation with COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Results Data on 122 patients (mean age, 43.9 ± 16.7 years; males, 50.0%; Crohn’s disease, 62.3%; ulcerative colitis, 37.7%) were reported. Twelve patients developed COVID-19-related pneumonia (9.8%), 4 (3.3%) required respiratory assistance (nonmechanical ventilation or orotracheal intubation), and 4 died (case fatality rate, 3.3%). In a multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.034; 95% CI, 1.006–1.147; P = .032) and severe IBD activity (OR, 13.465; 95% CI, 1.104–164.182; P = .042) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related pneumonia, while severe IBD activity (OR, 15.359; 95% CI, 1.320–178.677; P = .030) was the only independent predictor of severe COVID-19, a composite endpoint defined as the need for respiratory assistance or death. A trend towards a protective role of tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors on pneumonia development was reported (P = .076). Conclusions In this cohort of patients with IBD and SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe IBD activity was the only independent risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Background: The treatments for cancer palliation in patients with concomitant malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) are still under investigation due to the lack of evidence available in the medical literature. We performed a systematic search and critical review to investigate efficacy and safety among patients with MBO and MGOO undergoing both endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and MGOO endoscopic treatment. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. EUS-BD included both transduodenal and transgastric techniques. Treatment of MGOO included duodenal stenting or EUS-GEA (gastroenteroanastomosis). Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and rate of adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing double treatment in the same session or within one week. Results: 11 studies were included in the systematic review for a total number of 337 patients, 150 of whom had concurrent MBO and MGOO treatment, fulfilling the time criteria. MGOO was treated by duodenal stenting (self-expandable metal stents) in 10 studies, and in one study by EUS-GEA. EUS-BD had a mean technical success of 96.4% (CI 95%, 92.18–98.99) and a mean clinical success of 84.96% (CI 95%, 67.99–96.26). The average frequency of AEs for EUS-BD was 28.73% (CI 95%, 9.12–48.33). Clinical success for duodenal stenting was 90% vs. 100% for EUS-GEA. Conclusions: EUS-BD could become the preferred drainage in the case of double endoscopic treatment of concomitant MBO and MGOO in the near future, with the promising EUS-GEA becoming a valid option for MGOO treatment in these patients.

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has led IBD clinics to adopt a remote monitoring approach in order to guarantee an adequate follow-up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and ensure the rules of social distancing. Aim: The aim of the study was to perform a survey on IBD patients who underwent remote monitoring in our tertiary referral center, to assess adherence, patients’ perceptions and satisfaction, and finally their opinions for future monitoring. Furthermore, we evaluated changes in disease activity and Quality of Life (QoL) using validated questionnaires. Methods: Consecutive patients with IBD scheduled for follow-up visits were switched to remote monitoring through e-mail from March 2020 to February 2021. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire focusing on the following elements of the intervention: (1) self-assessment questions, (2) action plans, and (3) educational messages. Results: Four hundred and twenty four Caucasian patients completed the survey. 233 (55.1%) were male, 220 (52.0%) had Crohn’s Disease (CD). Median baseline Mayo Score and Harvey Bradshaw Index were 3 and 4, respectively. 9 (2.1%) patients were referred to the emergency department because of disease flares. 410 (96.9%) patients were satisfied with telemedicine, and 320 (76.5%) patients reported that they would maintain this approach also after COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, on univariate logistic regression analysis, none of the variables were related to patients’ satisfaction or to an improved QoL. The presence of ulcerative colitis was associated with the need for treatment change. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a telemedicine approach is well accepted by patients with IBD and could represent an effective tool in monitoring disease activity. Further controlled studies are warranted to properly assess if telemedicine can replace face-to-face consultations in IBD.

Summary Background Older age and comorbidities are the main risk factors for adverse COVID‐19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The impact of IBD medications is still under investigation. Aims To assess risk factors for adverse outcomes of COVID‐19 in IBD patients and use the identified risk factors to build risk indices. Methods Observational cohort study. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with pneumonia, hospitalisation, need for ventilatory support, and death. Results Of the 937 patients (446 with ulcerative colitis [UC]) evaluated, 128 (13.7%) had asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, 664 (70.8%) had a favourable course, and 135 (15.5%) had moderate or severe COVID‐19. In UC patients, obesity, active disease and comorbidities were significantly associated with adverse outcomes. In patients with Crohn's disease (CD), age, obesity, comorbidities and an additional immune‐mediated inflammatory disease were identified as risk factors. These risk factors were incorporated into two indices to identify patients with UC or CD with a higher risk of adverse COVID‐19 outcomes. In multivariable analyses, no single IBD medication was associated with poor COVID‐19 outcomes, but anti‐TNF agents were associated with a lower risk of pneumonia in UC, and lower risks of hospitalisation and severe COVID‐19 in CD. Conclusion The course of COVID‐19 in patients with IBD is similar to that in the general population. IBD patients with active disease and comorbidities are at greater risk of adverse COVID‐19 outcomes. IBD medications do not pose additional risks. The risk indices may help to identify patients who should be prioritised for COVID‐19 re‐vaccination or for therapies for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection., The course of COVID‐19 in patients with IBD patients is similar to that in the general population. IBD patients with active disease and comorbidities are at greater risk of adverse COVID‐19 outcomes. IBD medications do not pose additional risks.