ABSTRACT
Objective To study the serological response (SR) and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and its relation with IBD treatment and type of vaccine. Methods Observational, cross-sectional study in patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 without known previous infection. SR was analyzed by the determination of IgG antibodies against the S1 subunit. Safety was studied using a questionnaire to identify adverse effects (AE). Results 280 patients with IBD were included. Type of vaccines: Comirnaty® 68.8%;Spikevax® 10.8%, Vaxzevria® 18.3%, Ad26.COV2-S® 2.2%. 51.3% had AE, being 100% mild. 65% developed IgG antibodies after vaccination. The SR was higher for vaccines with mRNA technology (100% Spikevax®, 68.5% Comirnaty®) compared to those based on adenovirus vector (38.0% Vaxzevria®, 33.3% Ad26.COV2-S®) (P < .001). In the multivariate analysis, SR was related to age (<60 years;OR: 3.8, 95% CI 1.9–7.0;P < .001). The SR in patients with aminosalicylates was 65.4%, 61.4% with immunosuppressants, 65.8% with anti-TNF, and 68.7% with non-anti-TNF biologicals (P = .9). Conclusions One third of patients with IBD did not develop antibodies with the initial vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The SR to vaccines based on mRNA technology was higher, and it was related to age (higher in younger patients). Immunosuppressants and biologicals did not decrease SR. More than half of the patients presented AD, being mild in all cases.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To study the serological response (SR) and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and its relation with IBD treatment and type of vaccine. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study in patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 without known previous infection. SR was analyzed by the determination of IgG antibodies against the S1 subunit. Safety was studied using a questionnaire to identify adverse effects (AE). RESULTS: 280 patients with IBD were included. Type of vaccines: Comirnaty® 68.8%; Spikevax® 10.8%, Vaxzevria® 18.3%, Ad26.COV2-S® 2.2%. 51.3% had AE, being 100% mild. 65% developed IgG antibodies after vaccination. The SR was higher for vaccines with mRNA technology (100% Spikevax®, 68.5% Comirnaty®) compared to those based on adenovirus vector (38.0% Vaxzevria®, 33.3% Ad26.COV2-S®) (P<.001). In the multivariate analysis, SR was related to age (<60 years; OR: 3.8, 95% CI 1.9-7.0; P<.001). The SR in patients with aminosalicylates was 65.4%, 61.4% with immunosuppressants, 65.8% with anti-TNF, and 68.7% with non-anti-TNF biologicals (P=.9). CONCLUSIONS: One third of patients with IBD did not develop antibodies with the initial vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The SR to vaccines based on mRNA technology was higher, and it was related to age (higher in younger patients). Immunosuppressants and biologicals did not decrease SR. More than half of the patients presented AD, being mild in all cases.
ABSTRACT
Objective To study the serological response (SR) and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and its relation with IBD treatment and type of vaccine. Methods Observational, cross-sectional study in patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 without known previous infection. SR was analyzed by the determination of IgG antibodies against the S1 subunit. Safety was studied using a questionnaire to identify adverse effects (AE). Results 280 patients with IBD were included. Type of vaccines: Comirnaty® 68.8%;Spikevax® 10.8%, Vaxzevria® 18.3%, Ad26.COV2-S® 2.2%. 51.3% had AE, being 100% mild. 65% developed IgG antibodies after vaccination. The SR was higher for vaccines with mRNA technology (100% Spikevax®, 68.5% Comirnaty®) compared to those based on adenovirus vector (38.0% Vaxzevria®, 33.3% Ad26.COV2-S®) (P < .001). In the multivariate analysis, SR was related to age (<60 years;OR: 3.8, 95% CI 1.9–7.0;P < .001). The SR in patients with aminosalicylates was 65.4%, 61.4% with immunosuppressants, 65.8% with anti-TNF, and 68.7% with non-anti-TNF biologicals (P = .9). Conclusions One third of patients with IBD did not develop antibodies with the initial vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The SR to vaccines based on mRNA technology was higher, and it was related to age (higher in younger patients). Immunosuppressants and biologicals did not decrease SR. More than half of the patients presented AD, being mild in all cases. Resumen Objetivo Estudiar la respuesta serológica (RS) y tolerabilidad frente a la vacuna COVID-19 en pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) y su relación con el tratamiento de la EII y tipo de vacuna. Métodos Estudio observacional, transversal en pacientes con EII vacunados contra COVID-19 sin infección previa conocida. La RS se analizó mediante la determinación de anticuerpos IgG frente a la subunidad S1. La seguridad se estudió mediante cuestionario para identificación de efectos adversos (EA). Resultados Se incluyeron 280 pacientes con EII. Tipo de vacunas: Comirnaty® 68,8%;Spikevax® 10,8%, Vaxzevria® 18,3%, Ad26.COV2-S® 2,2%. Un 51,3% tuvo EA, siendo el 100% leves. Un 65% desarrolló anticuerpos IgG tras la vacunación. La RS fue superior para vacunas con tecnología ARNm (100% Spikevax®, 68,5% Comirnaty®) frente a las basadas en vector con adenovirus (38,0% Vaxzevria®, 33,3% Ad26.COV2-S®) (P < ,001). En el análisis multivariante la RS se relacionó con la edad (<60 años;OR: 3,8, IC 95% 1,9–7,0;P < ,001). La RS en pacientes con aminosalicilatos fue del 65,4%, 61,4% con inmunosupresor, 65,8% con anti-TNF y 68,7% con biológicos no anti-TNF (P = ,9). Conclusiones Un tercio de pacientes con EII no desarrolló anticuerpos con la pauta vacunal inicial frente a SARS-CoV-2. La RS a las vacunas basadas en tecnología ARNm fue superior, y estuvo relacionada con la edad (mayor en pacientes más jóvenes). Los inmunosupresores y biológicos no disminuyeron la RS. Más de la mitad de los pacientes presentaron EA, leves en todos los casos.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been hailed by some as the emblematic mental disorder of the COVID-19 pandemic, assuming that PTSD's life-threat criterion was met de facto. More plausible outcomes like adjustment disorder (AD) have been overlooked. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was launched in the initial stage of the pandemic using a convenience sample of 5 913 adults to compare the prevalence of COVID-related probable PTSD versus probable AD. The abridged Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-6) assessed the severity of trauma- and stressor-related symptoms over the previous week. Demographic and pandemic-related data (e.g., receiving a formal diagnosis of COVID-19, job loss, loss of loved one, confinement, material hardship) were collected. A Classification and Regression Tree analysis was conducted to uncover the pandemic experiences leading to clinical 'caseness'. Caseness was defined by a score > 9 on the IES-6 symptom measure and further characterized as PTSD or AD depending on whether the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory's life-threat item was endorsed or not. RESULTS: The participants were predominantly Caucasian (72.8%), women (79.2%), with a university degree (85%), and a mean age of 42.22 (SD = 15.24) years; 3 647 participants (61.7%; 95%CI [60.4, 63.0]) met the threshold for caseness. However, when perceived life-threat was accounted for, only 6.7% (95%CI [6.1, 7.4]) were classified as PTSD cases, and 55% (95%CI [53.7, 56.2]) as AD cases. Among the AD cases, three distinct profiles emerged marked by the following: (i) a worst personal pandemic experience eliciting intense fear, helplessness or horror (in the absence, however, of any life-threat), (ii) a pandemic experience eliciting sadness/grief, and (iii) worrying intensely about the safety of significant others. CONCLUSIONS: Studies considering the life-threat criterion as met de facto during the pandemic are confusing PTSD for AD on most counts. This misconception is obscuring the various AD-related idioms of distress that have emerged during the pandemic and the actual treatment needs.