Post-Covid-19 Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Background and aim: The long-term consequences of COVID- 19 infection on the gastrointestinal tract remain unclear. Here we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and post-COVID-19 disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) after hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Material(s) and Method(s): GI-COVID19 is a prospective, multicenter, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were evaluated upon hospital admission and after 1, 6, and 12 months post-hospitalization. Gastrointestinal symptoms, anxiety, and depression were assessed using validated questionnaires, namely the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS), the Hanxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders in Adults. Result(s): The study included 2183 hospitalized patients. The primary analysis included a total of 883 patients (614 COVID-19 patients and 269 controls) due to the exclusion of patients with pre-existing gastrointestinal symptoms and/or surgery. At enrollment, gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent among COVID-19 patients than in the control group (59.3% vs. 39.7%, P<0.001). At the 12-month follow- up, constipation and hard stools were significantly more prevalent in controls than in COVID-19 patients (16% vs. 9.6%, P=0.019 and 17.7% vs. 10.9%, P=0.011, respectively). Compared to controls, COVID- 19 patients reported higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to Rome IV criteria: 0.5% vs. 3.2%, P=0.045. Factors significantly associated with IBS diagnosis included history of allergies, chronic intake of proton pump inhibitors, and presence of dyspnea. [Table presented] At the 6-month follow-up, the rate of COVID-19 patients fulfilling the criteria for depression was higher than among controls. Conclusion(s): Compared to controls, hospitalized COVID-19 patients had fewer complaints of constipation and hard stools at 12 months after acute infection. COVID-19 patients had significantly higher rates of IBS than controls. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04691895.Copyright © 2023. Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l.

Zonulin concentration in patients with ulcerative colitis with and without COVID-19 infection

Background: Zonulin is a protein, reversibly increasing the permeability of the intestinal wall by changing the structure of tight junctions of the lateral surfaces of intestinal epithelial cells. Fecal zonulin is used for noninvasive assessment of increased intestinal permeability. Normal values of zonulin in stool (<= 110 ng/ml) indicate the absence of damage of the intestinal villous mucosal surface and normal density of intercellular contacts. The aim of the study was to determine the level of fecal zonulin (FZ) in the feces of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with exacerbation of the disease and the presence of COVID-19 in the acute period and without COVID-19 to assess the degree of intestinal permeability. Method(s): 46 patients with IBD without COVID-19 (Me age - 36 years) and 31 patients with UC with the presence of COVID-19 infection in the acute period (Me age - 42 years) were examined. Untreated stool samples of patients were frozen and stored at a temperature of 80 degreeC. FZ was measured by ELISA (IDK Zonulin ELISA Kit, Immunodiagnostik AG, Germany) in ng/ml. Reference values: < 83.15 ng/ml - a variant of the norm, 83.15-110 ng/ml - an elevated level, 110 ng/ml - a high level Results: In the stool samples of patients with UC exacerbation without COVID-19 FZ was detected from 172.6 to 460.8 ng/ml (Me - 316), the average value was 322.4+/-14.6 ng/ml. In the stool samples of patients with UC exacerbation and COVID-19 infection, FZ was detected from 354.8 to 628.3 ng/ml (Me - 489.9), the average value was 472.9+/-18.4 ng/ml (p=0.000001). Conclusion(s): FZ concentration in the feces of UC patients is significantly higher in UC patients with the presence of COVID-19 infection in the acute period, which indicates a higher permeability of the intestinal wall.

Post-Infection Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Sars-Cov-2 Patients: The Gi-Covid19 Study

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as COVID-19, may lead to persistent gastrointestinal dysfunction resembling aspects of post-infection disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). However, the long-term consequences of COVID-19 on the gastrointestinal tract remain unclear. Aims & Methods: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and post-infection disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) up to 12 months after hospitalization and the factors associated with their presence. The GI-COVID19 is a prospective, multicenter, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were assessed at hospital admission and followed up after 1, 6, and 12 months to assess gastrointestinal symptoms using the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale, the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders in Adults, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT04691895. Result(s): The study included2183 hospitalized patients. After excluding patients with pre-existing gastrointestinal symptoms and/or surgery, a total of 883 patients (614 COVID-19 and 269 controls) were included in the primary analysis, of whom 435 COVID-19 and 188 controls completed 12 months of follow-up. At enrollment, gastrointestinal symptoms occurred more frequently in COVID-19 patients than in the control group (59.3% vs. 39.7%, P<0.001). Symptoms more frequently complained by COVID-19 patients at enrollment were nausea, diarrhea, loose stool, and urgency. At 1-month follow-up evaluation, nausea and acid regurgitation were significantly more prevalent in COVID-19 patients than in the control group (8.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.015 and 8.4% vs. 2.1%, P=0.006, respectively). At 6 months, COVID-19 patients reported lower rates of flatus (17.6% vs. 19.1%, P=0.024), constipation (8.9% vs. 17.1%, P<0.001) and hard stools (9.6 vs. 17.2%, P=0.030) as compared with the control group. At 12 months, constipation and hard stools were significantly less prevalent in COVID-19 patients than in the control group (9.6% vs. 16%, P=0.019 and 10.9% vs. 17.7%, P=0.011, respectively). COVID-19 patients reported higher rates of DGBI during follow-up compared to controls (Table), although statistically significant differences were found only for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to Rome III criteria (4.4% vs 1.1%, P=0.036) and Rome IV criteria (3.2% vs 0.5%, P=0.045). The rate of COVID-19 patients depressed at 6 months and with anxiety at 12 months was higher compared to controls (4.1% vs 2.7%, P=0.014 and 4.5% vs 1.1%, P=0.088, respectively). Factors significantly associated with IBS diagnosis were anamnestic allergies (OR 10.024, 95% CI 1.766-56.891, P=0.009), chronic intake of proton pump inhibitors (OR 4.816, 95% CI 1.447-16.025, P=0.010) and dyspnea (OR 4.157, 95% CI 1.336-12.934, P=0.014). Conclusion(s): Hospitalized COVID-19 patients complain less constipation and hard stools than control at 12 months after acute infection. COVID-19 patients are also more likely to develop IBS.

Large differences in IBD care and education across Europe, first results of the pan-european viper survey

Introduction: More than 2.5 million people in Europe are diagnosed with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). IBD affects the quality of life, but also has important consequences for health systems. It remains unknown if variations in IBD care and education differs across Europe and to help address this question, we conducted this European Variation In IBD PracticE suRvey (VIPER) to study potential differences. Aims & Methods: This trainee-initiated survey, run through SurveyMonkey ®, consisted of 47 questions inquiring basic demographics, IBD training and clinical care. The survey was distributed through social media and national GI societies from December 2020 - January 2021. Results were compared according to GDP per capita, for which countries were divided into 2 groups (low/high income, according to the World Bank). Differences between groups were calculated using the chi2 statistic. Results: The online survey was completed by 1268 participants from 39 European countries. Most of the participants are specialists (65.3 %), followed by fellows in training (>/< 3 years, 19.1%, 15.6 %). Majority of the responders are working in academic institutions (50.4 %), others in public/ district hospitals (33.3 %) or private practices (16.3 %). Despite significant differences in access to IBD-specific training between high (56.4%) and low (38.5%) GDP countries (p<0.001), majority of clinicians feels comfortable in treating IBD (77.2% vs 72.0%, p=0.04). GDP was not a factor that dictated confidence in treating patients. IBD patients seen per week, IBD boards and especially IBD specific training were factors increasing confidence in managing IBD patients. Interestingly, a difference in availability of dedicated IBD units could be observed (58.5% vs 39.7%, p<0.001), as well as an inequality in multidisciplinary meetings (72.6% vs 40.2%, p<0.001), which often take place on a weekly basis (53.0%). In high GDP countries, IBD nurses are more common (86.2%) than in low GDP countries (36.0%, p<0.001), which is mirrored by differences in nurse-led IBD clinics (40.6% vs 13.8%, p<0.001). IBD dieticians (32.4% vs 16.6%) and psychologists (16.7% vs 7.5%) are mainly present in high GDP countries (p<0.001). In the current COVID era, telemedicine is available in 58.4% vs 21.4% of the high/low GDP countries respectively (p<0.001), as well as urgent flare clinics (58.6% vs 38.7%, p<0.001) and endoscopy within 24 hours if needed (83.0% vs 86.7% p=0.1). Treat-to-target approaches are implemented everywhere (85.0%), though access to biologicals and small molecules differs significantly. Almost all (94.7%) use faecal calprotectin for routine monitoring, whereas half also use intestinal ultrasound (47.9%). Conclusion: A lot of variability in IBD practice exists across Europe, with marked differences between high vs low GDP countries. Further work is required to help address some of these inequalities, aiming to improve and standardise IBD care across Europe.