ABSTRACT
Introduction: The exhaustive registry of COVID-19 cases in patients with IBD is a unique opportunity to learn how to deal with this infection, especially in reference to the management of immunosuppressive treatment, isolation measures or if the disease is more severe in IBD patients due to immunosuppression. Aims & Methods: Aims: The aims of this study were to know the incidence and characteristics of COVID-19 in the ENEIDA cohort during the first wave of the pandemic;the outcomes among those under immunosuppressants/ biologics for IBD;the risk factors for contracting the infection and poor outcomes;and the impact of the infection after three-month followup. Methods: Prospective observational cohort study of all IBD patients with COVID-19 included in the ENEIDA registry (with 60.512 patients in that period) between March and July 2020, with at least 3 months of follow-up. Any patient with a confirmed (by PCR or SARS-CoV-2 serology) or probable (suggestive clinical picture) infection was considered as a case. Results: A total of 482 patients with COVID-19 from 63 centres were included: 247 Crohn's disease, 221 ulcerative colitis and 14 unclassified colitis;median age 52 years (IQR: 42-61), 48% women and 44% 1 comorbidity. Diagnosis was made by PCR: 62% and serology: 35%. The most frequent symptoms: fever (69%), followed by cough (63%) and asthenia (38%). During lockdown 78% followed strict isolation. 35% required hospital admission (ICU: 2.7%) and 12% fulfilled criteria for SIRS upon admission. 18 patients died from COVID-19 (mortality:3.7%). 12% stop IBD medication during COVID-19. At 3 months, taken into account all included cases, 76% were in remission of IBD. Age 50 years (OR 2.09;95% CI:1.27-3.4;p=0.004), 1 comorbidities (OR 2.28;95% CI:1.4-3.6;p=0.001), and systemic steroids <3 months before infection (OR 1.3;95%CI:1-1.6;p= 0.003), were risk factors for hospitalisation due to COVID-19. A Charlson score 2 (OR 5.4;95%CI:1.5-20.1;p=0.01) was associated with ICU admission. Age 60 years (OR 7.1;95%CI:1.8-27.4;p=0.004) and having 2 comorbidities (OR 3.9;95% CI:1.3-11.6;p=0.01) were risk factors for COVID- 19 related death. Conclusion: IBD does not seem to worsen the prognosis of COVID-19, even when immunosuppressants and biological drugs are used. Age and comorbidity are the most important prognostic factors for more severe COVID-19 in IBD patients.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The information regarding IBD patients with COVID-19 suggests that the factors related to bad outcome are older age and comorbidity whereas immunosuppressants do not have a significant impact worsening the disease evolution. Aims & Methods: Aims: To assess if there are differences in epidemiological, demographical, and clinical characteristics between infected and non-infected IBD patients. Methods: Case-control study in IBD patients with COVID-19 (cases) compared to IBD without COVID-19 (controls) in the period March-July/2020 within the ENEIDA registry (promoted by GETECCU and with more than 60.000 IBD patients included). Cases were matched 1:2 by age (±5y), type of disease (CD/UC), gender, and centre. All controls were selected from only one investigator blind to other clinical characteristics of the patients to avoid selection bias. Results: 482 cases and 964 controls from 63 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found within the basal characteristics including CD location, CD behaviour, extraintestinal manifestations, family history of IBD or smoking habits. Cases had ≥ 1 comorbidities (cases:43%vs. controls: 35%, p=0.01) and occupational risk (cases:27% vs. controls:10.6%, p<0.0001) in a higher proportion. Strict lock-down was the only measure demonstrating protection against COVID-19 (cases:49% vs. controls:70%, p<0.0001). There were no differences in the use of systemic steroids (p=0.19), immunosuppressants (p=0.39) or biologics (p=0.28) between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with aminosalycilates (42% vs.34%, p=0.003). Having ≥ 1 comorbidities (OR:1.6, 95%CI: 1.2-2.1), occupational risk (OR:1.95, 95%CI:1.39-2.7) and the use of aminosalycilates (OR:1.4, 95%CI: 1-1.8) were risk factors for COVID-19. On the other hand, strict lockdown was a protective factor (OR:0.38, CI:0.29-0.49). Conclusion: Comorbidities and epidemiological risk factors are the most relevant aspects for the risk of COVID-19 in IBD patients. This risk of COVID- 19 seems to be increased by aminosalycilates but not by immunosuppressants or biologics. The attitude regarding treating IBD patients with aminosalicylates during COVID-19 pandemic deserves a deeper analysis. (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The respiratory infection caused by SARS-CoV2, known as COVID-19, has presented a fast worldwide expansion with significant sanitary repercussion as well as social and economic. Globally, patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been considered as population at risk for viral infections. To date, the evidence has not proved an increased risk for COVID-19 in this group. Aims & Methods: Our aim was to describe the main characteristics of our IBD patients who suffered SARS-CoV2 infection and to analyze both the evolution of their IBD and the infection's evolution. An observational, longitudinal, ambispective and multicentric study was performed. Patients with IBD with positive SARS-CoV2 PCR were included. Demographic variables along with data regarding to the COVID-19 infection were collected. SPSS® software version 20.0 was used for the statistic analysis. Results: We included 97 patients, 51.5% men. Overall mean age 43 (16-73) years old. Active smokers 13.5%, hypertensive 15.5%, diabetics 7.2% and obese 6.2%. According to the IBD 39.2% suffered from ulcerative colitis (UC), 55.7% Crohn's disease (CD), 2.1% linfocitic colitis and 2.1% indeterminate colitis. Mean IBD duration was 10.3 (SD 8.3) years. Perianal disease was present in 16.5% and extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) 26.8% (77% joint involvement). Upon the time of infection 28.4% had active IBD. Regarding treatment, 55.7% were on aminosalycilates (5ASA), 45.8% on immunosuppressants, 25% on steroids and 41.7% on biologics. The main symptoms of SARS-CoV2 infection were astenia (62%), cough (60%), fever (58%), headache (52%) and diarrhoea (45%). Hospital admission was required in 24.2% (61% suffering from severe respiratory disease) and ICU was required in 17.4% of them. There were no deaths. Compared to those who did not need hospital admission;the admitted patients were older (50 vs 40 years old, p=0.006), were more likely to be obese (20% vs 2.8%, p=0.017), to suffer from hypertension (39% vs 8.3%, p=0.0001), from heart failure (13% vs 0%, p=0.002), had more EIMs (43.5% vs 22.2%, p= 0.047), had a higher previous hospitalization within the last 3 months (43.3% vs 8.3%, p=0.002), were more on 5ASA (91.3% vs 45.8%, p=0.0001) and showed higher C-reactive protein levels (71 vs 13.7, p=0.017). Hospitalized patients were more likely to present diarrhoea (63.8% vs 36.2%, p=0.009), dyspnoea (65.2% vs 20.6%, p=0.0001), hypoxemia (39.1% vs 1.5%, p=0.0001), hyporexia (60.9% vs 19.1%, p=0.0001), abdominal pain (36.4% vs 14.5%, p=0.025) and fever (82.6% vs 50%, p=0.006). Related to need of ICU admission, EIMs (75% vs 25.3%, p=0.029) and previous admission within the last 3 months (50% vs 13.2%, p=0.042), were more frequent. Neither immunosuppressant treatment (45.8% vs 47.8%, p=0.87) nor biologic therapy (43.1% vs 34.8%, p=0.48) were related to the need for hospital admission. Conclusion: A quarter part of the patients with IBD and SARS-CoV2 infection needed hospitalisation. An older age, presence of comorbidities, hospital admission within the previous 3 months, treatment with 5ASA and EIMs were more frequent in those requiring admission. There was not identified any relation between active IBD or the use of immunosuppressants/ biologics and a worse evolution of the infection.