Treatment adaptations and outcomes of patients experiencing inflammatory bowel disease flares during the early COVID-19 pandemic: the PREPARE-IBD multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique opportunity to understand inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management during unexpected disruption. This could help to guide practice overall. AIMS: To compare prescribing behaviour for IBD flares and outcomes during the early pandemic with pre-pandemic findings METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study comprising patients who contacted IBD teams for symptomatic flares between March and June 2020 in 60 National Health Service trusts in the United Kingdom. Data were compared with a pre-pandemic cohort after propensity-matching for age and physician global assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: We included 1864 patients in each of the pandemic and pre-pandemic cohorts. The principal findings were reduced systemic corticosteroid prescription during the pandemic in Crohn's disease (prednisolone: pandemic 26.5% vs. 37.1%; p < 0.001) and ulcerative colitis (UC) (prednisolone: pandemic 33.5% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001), with increases in poorly bioavailable oral corticosteroids in Crohn's (pandemic 15.6% vs. 6.8%; p < 0.001) and UC (pandemic 11.8% vs. 5.2%; p < 0.001). Ustekinumab (Crohn's and UC) and vedolizumab (UC) treatment also significantly increased. Three-month steroid-free remission in each period was similar in Crohn's (pandemic 28.4% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.17) and UC (pandemic 36.4% vs. 40.2%; p = 0.095). Patients experiencing a flare and suspected COVID-19 were more likely to have moderately-to-severely active disease at 3 months than those with a flare alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite treatment adaptations during the pandemic, steroid-free outcomes were comparable with pre-pandemic levels, although concurrent flare and suspected COVID-19 caused worse outcomes. These findings have implications for IBD management during future pandemics and for standard practice.

A retrospective analysis of malnutrition risk, nutritional support and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The association between obesity and disease severity in COVID-19 has been reported, whilst the impact of undernutrition remains less well-defined. Here we describe nutritional risk profiles of consecutive COVID-19 hospital inpatients, together with clinical outcomes and the impact of nutritional therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study of adult inpatients admitted to University College London Hospital between February and July 2020 with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Data were extracted from electronic health records and compared to a control group of consecutive patients admitted between March and April 2019. COVID-19 patients were classified as at low, moderate or high nutritional risk according to a local nutritional screening tool on admission. Data relating to demographics, nutritional therapy and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between nutritional risk groups. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of the COVID-19 group were found to be at high nutritional risk (132/381, 34.6% vs. 105/468, 22.4%; p < 0.0001). Within the COVID-19 group, multivariate analysis showed that those at moderate and high nutritional risk had increased odds of having an above-average peak CRP (p = 0.004) and a below-average nadir albumin (p = 0.0002). Inpatient length of stay was on average 5.8 days longer for COVID-19 patients at moderate and high nutritional risk compared to those at low nutritional risk (p = 0.0008). COVID-19 patients at moderate nutritional risk on admission had a higher proportion of ICU admissions (28/89, 31.5% vs. 32/160, 20.0%; p = 0.01). Mortality was significantly worse in COVID-19 patients at high nutritional risk compared to those at low nutritional risk (52/132, 39.4% vs. 24/160, 15.0%; p < 0.0001). Prescription of enteral nutrition in ward-based COVID-19 patients at high nutritional risk was associated with lower inpatient mortality (20/67, 29.9% vs. 22/38, 57.9%; p = 0.009). In crude analysis, the 30-day mortality rate post-discharge was higher in those at moderate and high nutritional risk compared to those at low nutritional risk (13/151, 8.6% vs. 4/136, 2.9%, p < 0.05). Amongst patients at high nutritional risk, nutritional therapy was less common amongst non-white patients compared to white patients (12/29, 41.4% vs. 46/66, 70.0%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Patients admitted with COVID-19 were at significant risk of undernutrition, which was associated with adverse clinical outcomes in our study. This risk was reduced by simple nutritional interventions. Mortality amongst patients at high nutritional risk persisted beyond discharge, suggesting close nutritional follow up in the period following hospital admission is warranted.

Ambulatory care management of 69 patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis in comparison to 695 inpatients: insights from a multicentre UK cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) traditionally requires inpatient hospital management for intravenous therapies and/or colectomy. Ambulatory ASUC care has not yet been evaluated in large cohorts. AIMS: We used data from PROTECT, a UK multicentre observational COVID-19 inflammatory bowel disease study, to report the extent, safety and effectiveness of ASUC ambulatory pathways. METHODS: Adults (≥18 years old) meeting Truelove and Witts criteria between 1 January 2019-1 June 2019 and 1 March 2020-30 June 2020 were recruited to PROTECT. We used demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of colectomy during the index ASUC episode. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, time to and rate of rescue or primary induction therapy, response to rescue or primary induction therapy, time to colectomy, mortality, duration of inpatient treatment and hospital readmission and colectomy within 3 months of index flare. We compared outcomes in three cohorts: (1) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting; ambulatory patients subdivided into; (2) patients managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and (3) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care for continued intravenous steroids. RESULTS: 37% (22/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 764 eligible patients, 695 (91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 15 (2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis and 54 (7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways. Aside from younger age in patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis, no significant differences in disease or patient phenotype were observed. The rate of colectomy (15.0% (104/695) vs 13.3% (2/15) vs 13.0% (7/54), respectively, p=0.96) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. Stool culture and flexible sigmoidoscopy were less frequently performed in ambulatory cohorts. Forty per cent of patients treated as ambulatory from diagnosis required subsequent hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis of one of the largest ASUC cohorts collected to date, we report an emerging UK ambulatory practice which challenges treatment paradigms. However, our analysis remains underpowered to detect key outcome measures and further studies exploring clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04411784.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with inflammatory bowel disease medications: Reassuring insights from PREPARE-IBD

ATU-3 Frigure 1ConclusionsOur data provide reassurance for the continued evidence-based use of corticosteroids, immunomodulators and biologic therapies in IBD during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and is consistent with an as yet unexplained association between mesalazine use and severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Ambulatory care management of 70 patients with acute severe UC in comparison to 700 inpatients

ATU9 Figure 1). We utilised demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of rescue therapy and/or colectomy. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, response to rescue therapy, colectomy, mortality and hospital readmission within 3-months. We compared outcomes in 3 cohorts: i) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting;ambulatory patients subdivided into ii) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care;iii) patients managed as ambulatory from diagnosis.Results38%(23/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 770 eligible patients, 700(91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 55(7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways and 15(2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis. The rate of rescue therapy and/or colectomy (49%[339/696] vs 41%[22/54] vs 67%[10/15], respectively, p=0.18) (Abstract ATU9 figure 2) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. After 3-months follow up from the index ASUC diagnosis there was no significant difference in either rate of UC flare, readmission to hospital with UC flare or colectomy between the cohorts.Abstract ATU-9 Figure 1Abstract ATU-9 Figure 2ConclusionsIn the largest description of ambulatory ASUC care to date, we report an emerging practice which challenges treatment paradigms. We recommend that patients managed in the ambulatory setting are reviewed by gastroenterologists on a daily basis to monitor clinical parameters and assess for potential complications including venous thromboembolism and biochemical disturbance. Our data suggest ambulatory ASUC treatment may be safe and effective in selected patients but further studies exploring clinical and cost effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses are attenuated in patients with IBD treated with infliximab.

OBJECTIVE: Antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs impair protective immunity following pneumococcal, influenza and viral hepatitis vaccination and increase the risk of serious respiratory infections. We sought to determine whether infliximab-treated patients with IBD have attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infections. DESIGN: Antibody responses in participants treated with infliximab were compared with a reference cohort treated with vedolizumab, a gut-selective anti-integrin α4ß7 monoclonal antibody that is not associated with impaired vaccine responses or increased susceptibility to systemic infections. 6935 patients were recruited from 92 UK hospitals between 22 September and 23 December 2020. RESULTS: Rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar between groups. Seroprevalence was lower in infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (3.4% (161/4685) vs 6.0% (134/2250), p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analyses confirmed that infliximab (vs vedolizumab; OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.87), p=0.0027) and immunomodulator use (OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92), p=0.012) were independently associated with lower seropositivity. In patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroconversion was observed in fewer infliximab-treated than vedolizumab-treated patients (48% (39/81) vs 83% (30/36), p=0.00044) and the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was lower (median 0.8 cut-off index (0.2-5.6) vs 37.0 (15.2-76.1), p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Infliximab is associated with attenuated serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 that were further blunted by immunomodulators used as concomitant therapy. Impaired serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection might have important implications for global public health policy and individual anti-TNF-treated patients. Serological testing and virus surveillance should be considered to detect suboptimal vaccine responses, persistent infection and viral evolution to inform public health policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.

Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVE: Delayed second dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination trades maximal effectiveness for a lower level of immunity across more of the population. We investigated whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab have attenuated serological responses to a single dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. DESIGN: Antibody responses and seroconversion rates in infliximab-treated patients (n=865) were compared with a cohort treated with vedolizumab (n=428), a gut-selective anti-integrin α4ß7 monoclonal antibody. Our primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody assay 3-10 weeks after vaccination, in patients without evidence of prior infection. Secondary outcomes were seroconversion rates (defined by a cut-off of 15 U/mL), and antibody responses following past infection or a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: Geometric mean (SD) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following BNT162b2 (6.0 U/mL (5.9) vs 28.8 U/mL (5.4) p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4.7 U/mL (4.9)) vs 13.8 U/mL (5.9) p<0.0001) vaccines. In our multivariable models, antibody concentrations were lower in infliximab-treated compared with vedolizumab-treated patients who received the BNT162b2 (fold change (FC) 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.40), p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.51), p<0.0001) vaccines. In both models, age ≥60 years, immunomodulator use, Crohn's disease and smoking were associated with lower, while non-white ethnicity was associated with higher, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations. Seroconversion rates after a single dose of either vaccine were higher in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection, or a second dose of vaccine, led to seroconversion in most patients. Delayed second dosing should be avoided in patients treated with infliximab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.

Bedside postpyloric enteral tube placement using Kangaroo IRIS technology: a single-center case series.

OBJECTIVES: Postpyloric enteral feeding tubes (PPTs) are often placed endoscopically. This carries cost and capacity implications for hospitals with additional strain on endoscopy units during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The Kangaroo Feeding Tube with IRIS Technology (IRIS) uses optical visualization to guide bedside placement, obviating the need for endoscopy. We describe a case series of bedside postpyloric enteral feeding tube placement using the IRIS tube. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center case series over 12 mo. Conscious and sedated adult participants were included. Exclusion criteria were altered anatomy and need for endoscopy for other indications. IRIS placement was confirmed by contrast radiograph. RESULTS: Twenty attempts were made in 19 participants (13 women). The primary indication was intolerance of gastric feeding. The overall success rate was 75%. In sedated participants, 5 (83%) of 6 tubes were successful in 5 participants. In conscious participants, 10 (71%) of 14 tubes were successful in 14 participants. Placement failure in conscious participants was due to intolerance of the camera tip during nasal passage. The median procedure time was 13.5 min. In all cases, correct position as deemed by the operator was confirmed with contrast radiograph. No complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest single series of bedside postpyloric enteral feeding tube placement using the IRIS tube to date. The success rate and safety profile reported here, together with the potential benefits (reduced feeding delays, costs, and need for endoscopy) suggest that further, large-scale studies are warranted.

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: The PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FINDINGS: We included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. FUNDING: None.

Nutritional status and COVID-19: an opportunity for lasting change?

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed many healthcare systems, including the NHS, under unprecedented pressure. Mortality appears to be highest among older people and those with comorbidities, who are also often the most at risk of undernutrition in society. Despite international efforts to identify a specific treatment, therapy remains supportive and is principally focused on optimising respiratory function. However, the timely identification and correction of undernutrition also have the potential to improve outcomes cost-effectively, and should not be forgotten. This piece outlines why nutritional status may be particularly compromised during this crisis, among both the population and hospital inpatients. Practical steps to improve nutritional status at a time when hospital services are particularly stretched are also considered. Finally, the case is made for behaviour change at all levels including government, the general population and healthcare professionals.