Seroprevalence of ANTI-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with biologic and/or immunosuppressant drugs are at increased risk for opportunistic infections. Seroprevalence studies can confirm the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections as well as the associated risk factors. This is a descriptive study which primary endpoints were to highlight the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of IBD patients in March 2021, and to analyze seroconversion in patients with known COVID-19 infection and its relationship with IBD treatments. Patients filled in a questionnaire about symptoms of COVID-19 infection and clinical information about their IBD. All included patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. 392 patients were included. Among patients with clinical infection, 69 patients (17,65%) were IgG-positive, 286 (73,15%) IgG-negative and 36 (9,21%) indeterminate. In relation to seroconversion among patients under biologic treatment, 13 patients of the 23 with a previous positive CRP developed antibodies (56.5%). However, when the influence of immunosuppressive treatment on the probability of developing antibodies was analyzed, no significant differences were seen between those patients with or without treatment (77.8% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.96). In our cohort of IBD patients, after one year of pandemic, there were 18.64% IgG positive patients, a higher prevalence than the general population (15.7%).

CHARACTERIZATION of the IMMUNE RESPONSE in PATIENTS with INFLAMMATORY IMMUNE-MEDIATED DISEASES on IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT after ONE MONTH of SARS-COV-2 VACCINATION

Background: The relevance of studying immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with infammatory immune-mediated diseases (IMIDs) represents a deep concern regarding the risk estimation and management of patients with these diseases on immunomodulatory drugs. It is well known that certain treatments as anti CD20 therapies results in a diminished immunogenicity against common vaccines but it is a scarce data regarding the cellular protection obtained upon vaccination between patients with different IMID and between different treatments. Objectives: To compare a potential detriment on cellular and antibody-mediated protection upon SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IMIDs treated with immunosuppressive drugs. Methods: We recruited 73 patients with rheumatoid arthritis-RA-(n=49), spondy-larthritis-SpA-(n=19), infammatory bowel disease-IBD-(n=5), idiopathic juvenile arthritis-IJA-(n=2) and heterogenous group composed of sclerodermia, lupus, uveitis(n=6). They were treated mainly with rituximab (n=27), TNFi (n=37) or JAKi (n=3). We collected data of age,sex, csDMARDs, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, last RTX infusion and prednisone use. After one month of vaccination, we assessed the humoral response performing the Thermo Scientific EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG Test (positivity cut-off >0.70 IU/ml) which was also compared with the data with of 35 healthy controls. In addition, in 40 patients who had serum antibody levels under 100UI/ml, we analysed the cellular response by the use of the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 Starter Pack (Quiagen). A cut-off value of 0.15 IU/ml discriminate between positive or negative cell-mediated immune responses. We compared differences among the different IMIDs and between the different immu-nosuppressive treatments through non-parametric test (p<0.05) Results: Regarding demographic characteristics of patients, older patients (>56 years) and female sex were factors which were associated with low titles of serum antibodies. Anti-spike IgG antibodies were present in an 86% of the IMIDs patients and in 100% healthy controls with signifcant different IgG titre (median [IQR]): 51[11-184] vs 700[440-940];p<0.0001. The differences between (median [IQR]) serum antibody levels were statistically different between IMID type: 33[1-138] in RA vs 94[34-191] in SpA vs 204[187-204] in IBD vs 133[61-204] in IJA vs 13[1.5-31.8] in the rest;p=0.04. Remarkably, patients with IBD who had the highest antibodies titles were the youngest compared with the other patients. Target of the therapy played also an important role in serum antibody levels being these: 3.6 [0.7-51] in RTX patients vs 156 [45-204] in TNFi vs 40 [18-58] in JAKi patients;p<0.0001. In those patients who the last infusion of rituximab was, at least, one year before vaccination presented CD19+ B cells detected by fow cytometry and anti-spike IgG antibodies as well. Cell-mediated responses to SARS-CoV-2 were positive in 33% of IMIDs patients, indeterminated in 3% and negative in 65% of the patients. Strikingly, out of the 33% positive patients, 85% were treated with RTX. A 61% of the RTX patients had inducible cell-mediated responses vs 14% of the patients treated with TNFi;p<0.01. On the other hand, there were not differences in cell-mediated responses between positive and negative antibody patients. Conclusion: Titres of serum antibodies against spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were lower in IMIDs patients than in controls. Patients with RTX had lower rates of positivity humoral response as well as lower serum titles than patients treated with other therapies regardless the patients 'age. Neverthless, in those patients in whom RTX infusion was delayed because of vaccination they conserved a humoral response. On the other hand, more patients treated with RTX had inducible cell-mediated responses compared with patients with TNFi.

Serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in IBD patients: A prospective study

Background: Our objective is to evaluate the serologic response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). In addition to that, we want to analyze the influence of immunosuppressive drugs in that response, as well as describe the adverse events in this population. Methods: We included 266 patients in a unicentric prospective study. All patients signed informed consent. A serologic blood test was made days before the first dose and 2-4 weeks after the complete immunization. We used Siemens Atellica Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (N) and Vircell Virclia (S and N) electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2). If they were discordant, the results were considered as undetermined. The IBD treatment was stable along the study. The statistics analysis of data was done with Stata 16. Results: Basal characteristics are described in table 1. The patients were on treatment with: 15 (5.66%) had no treatment, 47 (17.7%) had mesalamine, 4 (1.51%) had corticosteroids, 41 (15.47%) had immunomodulator, 113 (42.64%) had biologic and 45 (16.98%) had combo. Amongst the biologic drugs: Infliximab 51 (32,3%), Adalimumab 50 (31,6%), Vedolizumab 19 (12,03%) y Ustekinumab 31 (19,6%). The vaccines were messenger RNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) in 154 12 months are presented as a real world evidence (RWE) comparison of UST vs anti-TNF. Methods: After exclusion of other biologics than UST and anti-TNF and missing outcomes, the final sample consisted of 607 CD-patients. Clinical remission (HBI ≤ 4) was the predefined endpoint at month 12. Patients were analyzed on a modified intent-to-treat basis (mITT;switchers considered as outcome failure). To reduce the effect of confounders, propensity score (PS) adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented. A weighted logistic regression was used, and the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: 343 UST (naïve: 35) and 264 anti-TNF (naïve: 175) (ADA 61%, IFX 39%) CD-patients were included. PS removed systematic differences between both groups (mean of both groups: 15% perianal disease, 36% surgical resection, 41% EIM). Overall, the number of switches was lower in the UST group than in the anti- TNF group (Tab. 1). However, the number of switches within 12 months was significantly lower in the UST group only when compared to the IFX group (16.3% vs 27.2%;p=0.045) (Fig. 1). Clinical remission rates at 1 year (Tab. 2) were not statistically different for the overall UST vs. anti-TNF groups (65.8% vs 60.0%). Remission rates were similar for UST vs ADA, while these were significantly higher for UST vs. IFX (61.6% vs 41.8%;p=0.009). Looking at clinical remission in the week 16 responder group (Tab. 3), a statistically significantly higher remission rate was found in the overall group for UST (77.6%) vs anti-TNF (65.4%) (p=0.041), which was mainly driven by the higher UST remission rate in biologic-naïve CD patients (p=0.026). Conclusion: This 1-year maintenance phase RWE-comparison with UST vs anti-TNF showed remarkably high clinical remission rates in both groups. Also due to a more frequent switching within the IFX group, the clinical remission rate at 1 year was significantly higher with UST than with IFX and higher with UST vs anti-TNF in the biologic-naïve groups. These results support together with the known favorable safety profile consideration of UST as a first-line targeted therapy for CD.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and immunosuppression do not worsen the prognosis of COVID-19. Results from the eneida project of Geteccu

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.

Comorbidities and epidemiological risk factor but not immunosuppressive therapies increase the risk of COVID-19 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): An ENEIDA-based, casecontrol study

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).

Serum prevalence of SARS-COv2 antibodies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease before vaccination

Introduction: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with biologic and/or immunosuppressant drugs are at increased risk for opportunistic infections, including viral infections (1) Previous studies have postulated that patients with IBD were not at increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections (2) although given the absence of microbiological confirmation at the onset of the pandemic, past infection could not be confirmed. Seroprevalence studies can confirm the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections as well as the associated risk factors. Aims & Methods: This is a descriptive study which primary endpoint was to highlight the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of patients diagnosed with IBD followed in our unit, between 26 February and 26 March 2021, one year after the start of the pandemic. Patients with scheduled on-site visits to our unit were included;they filled in a detailed questionnaire about symptoms of COVID-19 infection, demographic data and clinical information about their IBD. All included patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by ELISA. Results: 338 patients were included: 181 with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, 132 with ulcerative colitis and 25 with indeterminate colitis;baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. There were 74 patients with clinically suspected infection compared to 264 without compatible clinical features. Among patients with clinical infection, 63 patients (18,64%) were IgG-positive, 243 (71,89%) IgG-negative and 32 (9,47%) indeterminate;These results were compared with the prevalence data of the Spanish Government in the community of Madrid (IgG positive 15,7%);differences were not statistically significant (p<0.05) (5). The positivity rate was analysed according to the treatment received. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were 46 patients without treatment (serological positivity rate 13,04%), 90 patients receiving mesalazine (IgG positive 27,78%), 51 patients receiving immunomodulators (IgG positive 27,45%), 85 patients with biological treatment (IgG positive 17,64%) and 56 patients combined biological and immunosuppressive treatment (serological positivity rate 5,36%).);these results were statistically significant (p <0,05). It is difficult to establish whether these differences between treatments are due to a lower number of infections (more patient care in the immunocompromised groups) or a lower seroconversion rate. (Table Presented) Conclusion: Although SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a diagnostic challenge in some cases, the presence of antibodies by ELISA allows confirmation of past infection. In our cohort of IBD patients, after one year of pandemic, there were 18.64% IgG positive patients, a higher prevalence than the general population (15.7%) (4). These differences may be justified by a higher number of hospital visits, the inflammatory disease itself or the treatments received.