ABSTRACT
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may require different immunosuppressive treatments throughout their illness. It is essential to assess the immunization status of patients at diagnosis or, if this is not possible, at least before the beginning of immunosuppressive therapy and, subsequently, administering the appropriate vaccines. Therefore, the aim of this work is to establish clear and concise recommendations on vaccination in patients with IBD in the different settings of our clinical practice including vaccination in children, during pregnancy, breastfeeding or on trips. This consensus document emphasises the differences between inactivated and attenuated vaccines and the different degrees of immunosuppression and correlates them with the administration of both mandatory and optional vaccines recommended to our patients with IBD. Finally, as a summary, 17 recommendations are established based on the available scientific evidence and expert opinion. A multidisciplinary team with extensive experience in IBD and vaccination, made up of specialists in gastroenterology, paediatrics, nursing and pharmacy, has participated in the preparation of these recommendations of the Spanish Working Group on Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis.
Subject(s)
Colitis, Ulcerative , Crohn Disease , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , Child , Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy , Crohn Disease/drug therapy , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapy , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Vaccination , Chronic DiseaseABSTRACT
(1) Scant information is available concerning the characteristics that may favour the acquisition of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess these differences between infected and noninfected patients with IBD. (2) This nationwide case−control study evaluated patients with inflammatory bowel disease with COVID-19 (cases) and without COVID-19 (controls) during the period March−July 2020 included in the ENEIDA of GETECCU. (3) A total of 496 cases and 964 controls from 73 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found in the basal characteristics between cases and controls. Cases had higher comorbidity Charlson scores (24% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and occupational risk (28% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) more frequently than did controls. Lockdown was the only protective measure against COVID-19 (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found in the use of systemic steroids, immunosuppressants or biologics between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with 5-aminosalicylates (42% vs. 34%; p = 0.003). Having a moderate Charlson score (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.3−5.9), occupational risk (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8−4.4) and the use of 5-aminosalicylates (OR: 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2−2.5) were factors for COVID-19. The strict lockdown was the only protective factor (OR: 0.1; 95%CI: 0.09−0.2). (4) Comorbidities and occupational exposure are the most relevant factors for COVID-19 in patients with IBD. The risk of COVID-19 seems not to be increased by immunosuppressants or biologics, with a potential effect of 5-aminosalicylates, which should be investigated further and interpreted with caution.
ABSTRACT
We aim to describe the incidence and source of contagion of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, as well as the risk factors for a severe course and long-term sequelae. This is a prospective observational study of IBD and COVID-19 included in the ENEIDA registry (53,682 from 73 centres) between March-July 2020 followed-up for 12 months. Results were compared with data of the general population (National Centre of Epidemiology and Catalonia). A total of 482 patients with COVID-19 were identified. Twenty-eight percent were infected in the work environment, and 48% were infected by intrafamilial transmission, despite having good adherence to lockdown. Thirty-five percent required hospitalization, 7.9% had severe COVID-19 and 3.7% died. Similar data were reported in the general population (hospitalisation 19.5%, ICU 2.1% and mortality 4.6%). Factors related to death and severe COVID-19 were being aged ≥ 60 years (OR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.8-27 and 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3-15.9), while having ≥2 comorbidities increased mortality (OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3-11.6). None of the drugs for IBD were related to severe COVID-19. Immunosuppression was definitively stopped in 1% of patients at 12 months. The prognosis of COVID-19 in IBD, even in immunosuppressed patients, is similar to that in the general population. Thus, there is no need for more strict protection measures in IBD.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Older age has been reported as a risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19). The impact of immunosuppressants (IMS) on COVID-19 is still under debate. AIM: To describe the incidence and severity of COVID-19 in elderly patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in relation to the use of IMS. METHODS: IBD patients over 65 years of age were selected and grouped in terms of IMS use. Confirmed COVID-19, adherence to IST, comorbidities and concomitant non-IBD-related treatments between 1st of March 2020 to 1st of March 2021 were recorded. RESULTS: Out of 418 patients included, 89 (21.3%) were on IMS. Thirty-two patients (7.7%) had COVID-19, 7 of whom were on IMS (7.6% not on IMS vs. 7.9% on IMS; P = 0.933) and 7 (22%) patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of COVID-19 among elderly IBD patients was similar to that reported in the background population, regardless of the use of IMS.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Aged , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapy , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID19 evolved rapidly into a global pandemic, forcing hospitals, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) referral units, to change their practices to ensure quality of care. AIMS: To describe the clinical outcomes and the fulfilment of the treatment schedule of patients with IBD treated with biological agents in a single-center of a red-zone of the pandemic, and to report the patients' perceptions about COVID-19 and the measures adopted at our center. METHODS: Therapeutic adherence and clinical outcomes were collected for all patients undergoing treatment with intravenous biologicals and subcutaneous biologicals at our center. A telephone survey was also performed to assess these patients' perceptions of the COVID pandemic and the related measures adopted at their IBD unit. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients were included (117 on intravenous and 117 on subcutaneous biologicals). Only 10% of patients postponed intravenous infusions intentionally and 5% postponed the collection of subcutaneous biologicals at the hospital pharmacy. Only five confirmed COVID-19 cases were registered (2.1%), all of them of mild severity. One hundred and fifty-five patients participated in the survey (77 on intravenous and 78 on subcutaneous drugs). Fear of going to the hospital was the most common reason for postponing biological administrations. Among those on combination therapy, only 7% admitted to have withdrawn immunosuppressants. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to intravenous and subcutaneous biological therapies during the pandemic was high in a single-center cohort of IBD patients even though the cumulative incidence of confirmed COVID-19 was low.