The Effects of the COVID Pandemic on Patients with IBD: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused extended global disruption and changed healthcare behaviour and delivery in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, many of whom take immune modifying treatment. Although there were fears about the vulnerability of IBD patients to SARS-CoV-2 infection, we have learnt that overall IBD patients are equivalent to the general population in both viral acquisition and infection outcomes. Overall IBD patients obtain effective vaccine-induced immune responses, although in some groups an additional vaccine dose is required to constitute a primary course. The pandemic has led to significant changes in healthcare delivery, some of which will be enduring. As we grapple with the challenges of recovery, the lessons learnt will continue to be important in optimising outcomes in future outbreaks.

Misconceptions Drive COVID-19 Vaccine Hesistancy in Individuals with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Background Vaccination is an effective public health measure to combat the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, vaccine “hesitancy” has limited uptake in some, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who may have unique concerns influencing uptake. Aim The aim of the study is to explore attitudes, concerns, and the influence of different sources of information on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in IBD patients. Methods Patients from a specialist IBD clinic at a tertiary hospital in Australia and a national IBD patient society were invited to complete an anonymous online survey regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Demographic characteristics, attitudes towards vaccination, and trust in sources of information were explored. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with vaccine uptake. Results Of 441 respondents, 93% of respondents had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Self-perceived risk of being more unwell with COVID-19 infection due to IBD (AOR 5.25, 95% CI 1.96–14.04, p < 0.001) was positively associated with vaccine uptake. Concerns regarding the safety of vaccination in pregnancy (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08–0.65, p=0.006) and of causing an IBD flare (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10–0.77, p=0.01) were negatively associated with vaccine uptake. In total, 282 (73.7%) responders ranked healthcare workers the most trusted source to obtain information surrounding vaccination. Conclusion Vaccine hesitancy in IBD patients is low. Concerns about the safety of vaccination in pregnancy and in causing an IBD flare are both associated with vaccine hesitancy. Healthcare providers play a key role in proactively addressing these misconceptions particularly in the context of emerging virus variants and the availability of boosters.

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance.

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy in the Assessment of Mucosal Healing in Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) undergo frequent endoscopic procedures, with visualization of the gastrointestinal mucosa central to treatment decision-making. Subsequently, a noninvasive alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC) would be welcomed. One such technology is capsule endoscopy, including the PillCam COLON 2 (PCC2), though research validating its use in ileocolonic CD is limited. This study aims to compare PCC2 with ileocolonoscopy (OC) in assessing mucosal CD through use of a standardized scoring system. METHODS: At an Australian tertiary hospital, same-day PCC2 and ileocolonoscopy results of 47 CD patients, with known nonstricturing disease, were prospectively collected and analyzed for correlation and agreement. Deidentified recordings were reported by a single expert gastroenterologist. Mucosal disease was quantified using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD). The SES-CD results of paired endoscopic modalities were compared in total per bowel segment and per SES-CD variable. RESULTS: Of 47 PCC2 recordings, 68% were complete, fully assessing terminal ileum to rectum, and OC was complete in 89%. Correlation (r) between total SES-CD scores was strongest in the terminal ileum (r = 0.77, P < .001), with the SES-CD variable of "ulcer detection" showing the strongest agreement. The PCC2 (vs OC) identified additional ulcers in the terminal ileum; ascending, transverse, and descending colon; and rectum; scores were 5 (1), 5 (3), 1 (1), 2 (1), and 2 (2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PCC2 shows promise in assessing ileocolonic mucosa, especially in proximal bowel segments, with greater reach of visualization in the small bowel. Given the resource and safety considerations raised by the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, capsule endoscopy has particular significance.This article aims to contribute to the limited body of research surrounding the validity of capsule endoscopy technology in assessing ileocolonic mucosa in Crohn's Disease patients. In doing so, an alternative option for patients enduring frequent endoscopies is given potential.

Commentary: Pivoting during a pandemic: developing a new recruitment model for a randomised controlled trial in response to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Many non-COVID-19 trials were disrupted in 2020 and either struggled to recruit participants or stopped recruiting altogether. In December 2019, just before the pandemic, we were awarded a grant to conduct a randomised controlled trial, the Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA) trial, in Victoria, the Australian state most heavily affected by COVID-19 during 2020. MAIN BODY: We originally modelled the SITA trial recruitment method on previous trials where participants were approached and recruited in general practice waiting rooms. COVID-19 changed the way general practices worked, with a significant increase in telehealth consultations and restrictions on in person waiting room attendance. This prompted us to adapt our recruitment methods to this new environment to reduce potential risk to participants and staff, whilst minimising any recruitment bias. We designed a novel teletrial model, which involved calling participants prior to their general practitioner appointments to check their eligibility. We delivered the trial both virtually and face-to-face with similar overall recruitment rates to our previous studies. CONCLUSION: We developed an effective teletrial model which allowed us to complete recruitment at a high rate. The teletrial model is now being used in our other primary care trials as we continue to face the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Personal Protective Equipment for Endoscopy in Low-Resource Settings During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidance From the World Gastroenterology Organisation.

Performance of endoscopic procedures is associated with a risk of infection from COVID-19. This risk can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, shortage of PPE has emerged as an important issue in managing the pandemic in both traditionally high and low-resource areas. A group of clinicians and researchers from thirteen countries representing low, middle, and high-income areas has developed recommendations for optimal utilization of PPE before, during, and after gastrointestinal endoscopy with particular reference to low-resource situations. We determined that there is limited flexibility with regard to the utilization of PPE between ideal and low-resource settings. Some compromises are possible, especially with regard to PPE use, during endoscopic procedures. We have, therefore, also stressed the need to prevent transmission of COVID-19 by measures other than PPE and to conserve PPE by reduction of patient volume, limiting procedures to urgent or emergent, and reducing the number of staff and trainees involved in procedures. This guidance aims to optimize utilization of PPE and protection of health care providers.

Review article: prevention, diagnosis and management of COVID-19 in the IBD patient.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has emerged as a public health emergency. All nations are seriously challenged as the virus spreads rapidly across the globe with no regard for borders. The primary management of IBD involves treating uncontrolled inflammation with most patients requiring immune-based therapies. However, these therapies may weaken the immune system and potentially place IBD patients at increased risk of infections and infectious complications including those from COVID-19. AIM: To summarise the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, review unique concerns regarding IBD management and infection risk during the pandemic and assess COVID-19 management options and drug interactions in the IBD population. METHODS: A literature review on IBD, SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 was undertaken and relevant literature was summarised and critically examined. RESULTS: IBD patients do not appear to be more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and there is no evidence of an association between IBD therapies and increased risk of COVID-19. IBD medication adherence should be encouraged to prevent disease flare but where possible high-dose systemic corticosteroids should be avoided. Patients should exercise social distancing, optimise co-morbidities and be up to date with influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. If a patient develops COVID-19, immune suppressing medications should be withheld until infection resolution and if trial medications for COVID-19 are being considered, potential drug interactions should be checked. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patient management presents a challenge in the current COVID-19 pandemic. The primary focus should remain on keeping bowel inflammation controlled and encouraging medication adherence.