ABSTRACT
Introduction: Some COVID-19 vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) have been associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis in younger adults. However, observational studies were unable to stratify by dose and had limited ability to evaluate the effect of adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines due to the limited distribution of these in their study populations [1-4]. Objective(s): Estimate the incidence rates (IR), rate differences (RD) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) of myocarditis and pericarditis before and after each dose of mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) and adenovirusplatform (AstraZeneca and Janssen) COVID-19 vaccines. Method(s): We conducted a population-based cohort design with nested self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) study. Participants were followed from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2021. Data were derived from healthcare data from five population-based data sources in four European countries: Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and Spain. The main outcome was first occurrence of myocarditis or pericarditis. RD and IR before COVID-19 disease and after each COVID-19 vaccine dose in those without COVID-19 were calculated. The SCRI calculated IRR with 60-day control period prior to vaccination and 28-day risk windows, with adjustment for seasonality. All analyses were stratified by age (<30 and >= 30 years) and in the cohorts refined age-bands for<30 were utilised. Result(s): The study cohort comprised 35,365,669 persons with median age between 39-49 years, 57.4% received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and 77.6% of these received two. Myocarditis background rates were highest in persons 18-29 years (IR 2.8, 95% CI [1.5-4.1] to 6.4 [3.8-9.0] across UK, the Netherlands and Spain, and for 12-17 years in Italy (IR = 9.9 [5.3-14.4]). Pericarditis rates were higher in persons>30 years (standardised IR from 11.6 [10.9-12.4] to 29.7 [19.8-22.1] across databases). RD of myocarditis were significantly elevated after Moderna dose 2 in persons between 18-29 years in Italy. Significantly reduced RD of pericarditis in the age group above 30 years was seen for Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. The SCRI showed significantly higher myocarditis IRR after dose 1 of Pfizer (IRR = 3.3 [1.2-9.4]), and also after dose 2 of Pfizer and Moderna in persons 12-29 years (IRR of 7.8 [2.6-23.5] and 6.1 [1.1-33.5], respectively). No association was observed between COVID-19 vaccination and pericarditis in the SCRI. In a sensitivity analysis, occasional significant association was seen for AstraZeneca dose 2 and myocarditis. Conclusion(s): Myocarditis is rare, but rates were increased significantly after both doses of Pfizer and the second dose of Moderna vaccines in persons below 30 years of age. This was not seen for pericarditis.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Some COVID-19 vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) have been associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis in younger adults. However, observational studies were unable to stratify by dose and had limited ability to evaluate the effect of adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines due to the limited distribution of these in their study populations [1-4]. Objective: Estimate the incidence rates (IR), rate differences (RD) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) of myocarditis and pericarditis before and after each dose of mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) and adenovirusplatform (AstraZeneca and Janssen) COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort design with nested self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) study. Participants were followed from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2021. Data were derived from healthcare data from five population-based data sources in four European countries: Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and Spain. The main outcome was first occurrence of myocarditis or pericarditis. RD and IR before COVID-19 disease and after each COVID-19 vaccine dose in those without COVID-19 were calculated. The SCRI calculated IRR with 60-day control period prior to vaccination and 28-day risk windows, with adjustment for seasonality. All analyses were stratified by age (< 30 and > 30 years) and in the cohorts refined age-bands for < 30 were utilised. Results: The study cohort comprised 35,365,669 persons with median age between 39-49 years, 57.4% received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and 77.6% of these received two. Myocarditis background rates were highest in persons 18-29 years (IR 2.8, 95% CI [1.5-4.1] to 6.4 [3.8-9.0] across UK, the Netherlands and Spain, and for 12-17 years in Italy (IR = 9.9 [5.3-14.4]). Pericarditis rates were higher in persons > 30 years (standardised IR from 11.6 [10.9-12.4] to 29.7 [19.8-22.1] across databases). RD of myocarditis were significantly elevated after Moderna dose 2 in persons between 18-29 years in Italy. Significantly reduced RD of pericarditis in the age group above 30 years was seen for Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. The SCRI showed significantly higher myocarditis IRR after dose 1 of Pfizer (IRR = 3.3 [1.2-9.4]), and also after dose 2 of Pfizer and Moderna in persons 12-29 years (IRR of 7.8 [2.6-23.5] and 6.1 [1.1-33.5], respectively). No association was observed between COVID-19 vaccination and pericarditis in the SCRI. In a sensitivity analysis, occasional significant association was seen for AstraZeneca dose 2 and myocarditis. Conclusion: Myocarditis is rare, but rates were increased significantly after both doses of Pfizer and the second dose of Moderna vaccines in persons below 30 years of age. This was not seen for pericarditis.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Objective evaluation of treatment response is the gold standard in ulcerative colitis (UC). In this setting, intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is a non-invasive alternative to endoscopy. Recent studies showed change in IUS parameters after treatment initiation but studies with an endoscopic reference standard are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate early change of IUS parameters and determine cut-off values for endoscopic endpoints in UC patients starting anti-inflammatory treatment. Methods In this longitudinal prospective study consecutive patients with moderate-severe UC (baseline endoscopic Mayo score (EMS)≥2) starting an anti-inflammatory treatment were included. Clinical scores, biochemical parameters and IUS parameters were collected at baseline, after 2 (T1), 6 (T2) and 8-26 weeks (T3) around time of the second sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy. Bowel wall thickness (BWT), Colour Doppler signal (CDS), haustrations, inflammatory fat and wall layer stratification were measured as previously established1. Endoscopic remission (ER) and mucosal healing (MH) were evaluated in the sigmoid and defined as EMS=0 and EMS≤1, respectively. The ultrasonographist and endoscopist were blinded for the outcomes of endoscopy and IUS, respectively. Results 51 consecutive patients were included (Table 1) of whom 31 underwent a second endoscopy. Two additional patients underwent colectomy and were considered non-responders. 18 patients did not undergo second endoscopy due to the COVID-19 pandemic (n=2), refusal (n=5), loss to follow-up (n=1) or treatment escalation because of clinical deterioration confirmed by IUS and biomarkers before second endoscopy was performed (n=10). BWT was significantly lower from T2 onwards in patients reaching MH (p=0.026) and ER (p=0.002) at T3 (Fig 1). A significant decrease in BWT was already visible at T1 in patients receiving infliximab (median DBWT T0-T1: -26% [-43% - -6%], p=0.001) or tofacitinib (median ∆BWT T0-T1: -33% [-46% - -5%], p=0.001) but not in patients treated with vedolizumab (median ∆BWT T0-T1: -14% [-43% - 5%], p=0.11). Most accurate BWT cut-off values at T3 to determine MH and ER were 3.52 mm (AUROC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86-1.00, p<0.0001, sens:91%, spec:91%) and 2.98 mm (AUROC: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.85-1.00, p=0.001, sens:87%, spec:100%), respectively. At T2, BWT per 1 mm increase and CDS were inversely associated with MH (BWT: OR: 0.48 (0.24-0.96, p=0.038);CDS: OR 0.16 (0.03-0.83), p=0.028) and ER (BWT: OR: 0.30 (0.11-0.76), p=0.01). Conclusion BWT and CDS 6 weeks after start of treatment could predict MH and ER. In addition, treatment response at IUS is drug-specific. Furthermore, we have provided accurate BWT cut-off values for endoscopic outcomes. In a point-of-care setting, (early) treatment evaluation with IUS could guide treatment decision in UC in order to optimize treatment response. 1. Bots et al. JCC 2021
ABSTRACT
Background: Objective evaluation of treatment response is the gold standard in ulcerative colitis (UC). In this setting, intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is a non-invasive alternative to endoscopy. Recent studies showed change in IUS parameters after treatment initiation but studies with an endoscopic reference standard are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate early change of IUS parameters and determine cut-off values for endoscopic endpoints in UC patients starting anti-inflammatory treatment. Methods: In this longitudinal prospective study consecutive patients with moderate-severe UC (baseline endoscopic Mayo score (EMS)≥2) starting an anti-inflammatory treatment were included. Clinical scores, biochemical parameters and IUS parameters were collected at baseline, after 2 (T1), 6 (T2) and 8-26 weeks (T3) around time of the second sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy. IUS parameters were measured as previously established1. Endoscopic remission (ER) and mucosal healing (MH) were evaluated in the sigmoid and defined as EMS=0 and EMS≤1, respectively. The ultrasonographist and endoscopist were blinded for the outcomes of endoscopy and IUS, respectively. Results: 51 consecutive patients were included (Table 1) of whom 31 underwent a second endoscopy (MH: n=15 (45%), ER: n=9 (27%)). Two additional patients underwent colectomy and were considered non-responders. 18 patients did not undergo second endoscopy due to the COVID-19 pandemic (n=2), refusal (n=5), loss to follow-up (n=1) or treatment escalation because of clinical deterioration confirmed by IUS and biomarkers before second endoscopy was performed (n=10). Bowel wall thickness (BWT) was significantly lower from T2 onwards in patients reaching MH (p=0.026) and ER (p=0.002) at T3 (Fig 1). A significant decrease in BWT was already visible at T1 in patients receiving infliximab (p=0.001) or tofacitinib (p=0.007), but not in patients treated with vedolizumab (p=0.11) (Fig 2). Most accurate BWT cut-off values at T3 to determine MH and ER were 3.52 mm (AUROC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86-1.00, p<0.0001, sens: 91%, spec: 91%) and 2.98 mm (AUROC: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.85-1.00, p=0.001, sens: 87%, spec: 100%), respectively. Other IUS parameters at T3 did not improve association with MH or ER. IUS parameters at T2 that predict MH and ER are demonstrated in Table 2. Conclusion: BWT and Colour Doppler Signal 6 weeks after start of treatment are associated with and could predict MH and ER. In addition, treatment response patterns at IUS are drug-specific. Furthermore, we have provided accurate BWT cut-off values for endoscopic outcomes. In a point-of-care setting, (early) treatment evaluation with IUS could guide treatment decision in UC in order to optimize treatment response.