Reduced humoral response to two doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Data from ESCAPE-IBD, an IG-IBD study.

BACKGROUND: Patients on immunosuppressive drugs have been excluded from COVID-19 vaccines trials, creating concerns regarding their efficacy. AIMS: To explore the humoral response to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) METHODS: Effectiveness and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccine in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Treated with Immunomodulatory or Biological Drugs (ESCAPE-IBD) is a prospective, multicentre study promoted by the Italian Group for the study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. We present data on serological response eight weeks after the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination in IBD patients and healthy controls (HCs). RESULTS: 1076 patients with IBD and 1126 HCs were analyzed. Seropositivity for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was reported for most IBD patients, even if with a lesser rate compared with HCs (92.1% vs. 97.9%; p<0.001). HCs had higher antibody concentrations (median OD 8.72 [IQR 5.2-14-2]) compared to the whole cohort of IBD patients (median OD 1.54 [IQR 0.8-3.6]; p<0.001) and the subgroup of IBD patients (n=280) without any treatment or on aminosalicylates only (median OD 1.72 [IQR 1.0-4.1]; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although most IBD patients showed seropositivity after COVID-19 vaccines, the magnitude of the humoral response was significantly lower than in HCs. Differently from other studies, these findings seem to be mostly unrelated to the use of immune-modifying treatments (ClinicalTrials.govID:NCT04769258).

Impact of Hypogammaglobulinemia on the Course of COVID-19 in a Non-Intensive Care Setting: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Severity and mortality of COVID-19 largely depends on the ability of the immune system to clear the virus. Among various comorbidities potentially impacting on this process, the weight and the consequences of an antibody deficiency have not yet been clarified. Methods: We used serum protein electrophoresis to screen for hypogammaglobulinemia in a cohort of consecutive adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalized in non-intensive care setting between December 2020 and January 2021. The disease severity, measured by a validated score and by the need for semi intensive (sICU) or intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the 30-day mortality was compared between patients presenting hypogammaglobulinemia (HYPO) and without hypogammaglobulinemia (no-HYPO). Demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 specific treatment during the hospital stay, disease duration, complications and laboratory parameters were also evaluated in both groups. Results: We enrolled 374 patients, of which 39 represented the HYPO cohort (10.4%). In 10/39 the condition was previously neglected, while in the other 29/39 hematologic malignancies were common (61.5%); 2/39 were on regular immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). Patients belonging to the HYPO group more frequently developed a severe COVID-19 and more often required sICU/ICU admission than no-HYPO patients. IgRT were administered in 8/39 during hospitalization; none of them died or needed sICU/ICU. Among HYPO cohort, we observed a significantly higher prevalence of neoplastic affections, of active oncologic treatment and bronchiectasis, together with higher prevalence of viral and bacterial superinfections, mechanical ventilation, convalescent plasma and SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies administration during hospital stay, and longer disease duration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression confirmed the impact of hypogammaglobulinemia on the COVID-19 severity and the probability of sICU/ICU admission. The analysis of the mortality rate in the whole cohort showed no significant difference between HYPO and no-HYPO. Conclusions: Hypogammaglobulinemia, regardless of its cause, in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a non-intensive care setting was associated to a more severe disease course and more frequent admission to s-ICU/ICU, particularly in absence of IgRT. Our findings emphasize the add-value of routine serum protein electrophoresis evaluation in patients admitted with COVID-19 to support clinicians in patient care and to consider IgRT initiation during hospitalization.

Changes in hospital admissions and complications of acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common emergencies in general surgery worldwide. During the pandemic, a significant decrease in the number of accesses to the emergency department for AA has been recorded in different countries. A systematic review of the current literature sought to determine the impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hospital admissions and complications of AA. Method: A systematic search was undertaken to identify repeated cross-sectional studies reporting the management of AA during the COVID-19 pandemic (index period) as compared to the previous year, or at the turn of lockdown (reference period). Data were abstracted on article (country of origin) and patients characteristics (adults, children [i.e. non adults, <18-year-old]), or mixed population) within the two given timeframes, including demographics, number of admissions for AA, number of appendectomies, and complicated appendectomies. Results: Of 201 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 54 studies from 22 world countries were included. In total, 27 (50%) were conducted on adults, 12 (22%) on children, and 15 (28%) on a mixed patients population. The overall rate ratio of admissions for AA between the two periods was 0.94 (95%CI, 0.75-1.17), with significant differences between studies on adults (0.90 [0.74-1.09]), mixed population (0.50 [0.27-0.90]), and children (1.50 [1.01-2.22]). The overall risk ratio of complicated AA was 1.65 (1.32-2.07), ranging from 1.32 in studies on children, to 2.45 in mixed population. Conclusion: The pandemic has altered the rate of admissions for AA and appendectomy, with parallel increased incidence of complicated cases in all age groups.

Comparison between Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone Therapy in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Admitted to Non-Intensive Medical Units.

(1) Background: Data on different steroid compounds for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) patients are still limited. The aim of this study was to compare COVID-19 patients admitted to non-intensive units and treated with methylprednisolone or dexamethasone. (2) Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study that included consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards during the second wave of the pandemic. Thirty-day mortality and the need for intensive or semi-intensive care were the main clinical outcomes analyzed in patients receiving methylprednisolone (60 mg/day) compared with dexamethasone (6 mg/day). Secondary outcomes included complication rates, length of hospital stay, and time to viral clearance. (3) Results: Two-hundred-forty-six patients were included in the analysis, 110 treated with dexamethasone and 136 with methylprednisolone. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of patients regarding 30-day mortality (OR 1.35, CI95% 0.71-2.56, p = 0.351) and the need for intensive or semi-intensive care (OR 1.94, CI95% 0.81-4.66, p = 0.136). The complication rates, length of hospital stay, and time to viral clearance did not significantly differ between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in non-intensive units, the choice of different steroid compounds, such as dexamethasone or methylprednisolone, did not affect the main clinical outcomes.

Chest radiography findings of COVID-19 pneumonia: a specific pattern for a confident differential diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography (CR) patterns for the diagnosis of COVID-19 have been established. However, they were not ideated comparing CR features with those of other pulmonary diseases. PURPOSE: To create the most accurate COVID-19 pneumonia pattern comparing CR findings of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary diseases and to test the model against the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CR of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary diseases, admitted to the emergency department, were evaluated. Assessed features were interstitial opacities, ground glass opacities, and/or consolidations and the predominant lung alteration. We also assessed uni-/bilaterality, location (upper/middle/lower), and distribution (peripheral/perihilar), as well as pleural effusion and perihilar vessels blurring. A binary logistic regression was adopted to obtain the most accurate CR COVID-19 pattern, and sensitivity and specificity were computed. The newly defined pattern was compared to BSTI criteria. RESULTS: CR of 274 patients were evaluated (146 COVID-19, 128 non-COVID-19). The most accurate COVID-19 pneumonia pattern consisted of four features: bilateral alterations (Expß=2.8, P=0.002), peripheral distribution of the predominant (Expß=2.3, P=0.013), no pleural effusion (Expß=0.4, P=0.009), and perihilar vessels' contour not blurred (Expß=0.3, P=0.002). The pattern showed 49% sensitivity, 81% specificity, and 64% accuracy, while BSTI criteria showed 51%, 77%, and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Bilaterality, peripheral distribution of the predominant lung alteration, no pleural effusion, and perihilar vessels contour not blurred determine the most accurate COVID-19 pneumonia pattern. Lower field involvement, proposed by BSTI criteria, was not a distinctive finding. The BSTI criteria has lower specificity.

Therapies for inflammatory bowel disease do not pose additional risks for adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an IG-IBD study.

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.

Use of RAAS Inhibitors and Risk of Clinical Deterioration in COVID-19: Results From an Italian Cohort of 133 Hypertensives.

BACKGROUND: The effect of chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the severity of COVID-19 infection is still unclear in patients with hypertension. We aimed to investigate the association between chronic use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and COVID-19-related outcomes in hypertensive patients. METHODS: A single-center study was conducted on 133 consecutive hypertensive subjects presenting to the emergency department with acute respiratory symptoms and/or fever who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection between 9 and 31 March 2020. RESULTS: All patients were grouped according to their chronic antihypertensive medications (ACEIs, N = 40; ARBs, N = 42; not on RAAS inhibitors, N = 51). There was no statistical difference between ACEIs and ARBs groups in terms of hospital admission rate, oxygen therapy, and need for noninvasive ventilation. Patients chronically treated with RAAS inhibitors showed a significantly lower rate of admission to semi-intensive/intensive care units, when compared with the non-RAAS population (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.09-0.66, P = 0.006). Similarly, the risk of mortality was lower in the former group, although not reaching statistical significance (OR 0.56, CI 95% 0.17-1.83, P = 0.341). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that chronic use of RAAS inhibitors does not negatively affect clinical course of COVID-19 in hypertensive patients. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding and determine whether RAAS inhibitors may have a protective effect on COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.

Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Healthcare Workers in Italy: Results from a National E-Survey.

Italy has been the first-hit European country to face the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aim of this survey was to assess in depth the impact of the outbreak on healthcare workers (HCW). A 40-item online survey was disseminated via social media inviting Italian HCW, with questions exploring demographics, health status and work environment of respondents. A total of 527 were invited to take part in March 2020, of whom 74% (n = 388) responded to the survey. Of these, 235 (61%) were women. HCW were mostly physicians (74%), from high-prevalence regions (52%). 25% experienced typical symptoms during the last 14 days prior to survey completion, with only 45% of them being tested for COVID-19. Among the tested population, 18 (18%) resulted positive for COVID-19, with 33% being asymptomatic. Only 22% of HCW considered personal protective equipment adequate for quality and quantity. Females and respondents working in high-risk sectors were more likely to rate psychological support as useful (OR, 1.78 [CI 95% 1.14-2.78] P = 0.012, and 2.02 [1.12-3.65] P = 0.020, respectively) and workload as increased (mean increase, 0.38 [0.06-0.69] P = 0.018; and 0.54 [0.16-0.92] P = 0.005, respectively). The insights from this survey may help authorities in countries where COVID-19 epidemic has not yet broken out. Management strategies should be promptly undertaken in order to enhance safety and optimise resource allocation.