Depression, anxiety, and stress among inflammatory bowel disease patients during COVID-19: A UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with chronic diseases are believed to be at increased risk of mental health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the incidence of psychological morbidity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, explore for association with risk of severe COVID-19 and other factors, and establish patients' interest in psychological support. METHODS: A survey including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Perceived Stress Scale tools for depression, anxiety, and stress was administered to IBD patients from a tertiary center in London, United Kingdom, in June 2020. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-four patients responded to the survey (57% response rate), with 271 (99%) completing it. Moderate-severe depression was observed in 61 (22.5%), while 49 (18%) had moderate-severe anxiety; 39 (14%) had both diagnoses. Mean (SD) stress score was 16.2 (7.4). There was no association between degree of severe COVID-19 risk and psychological morbidity. Flare symptoms and fatigue were associated with worse psychological morbidity, while accessibility of information regarding COVID-19 risk and reducing that risk was protective for depression (odds ratio [OR] 0.56 [0.33-0.94], P = 0.03), anxiety (OR 0.62 [0.4-0.96], P = 0.03), and stress (standardized ß-coefficient -0.15 [-0.28 to -0.03], P = 0.02). Seventy-nine (30%) respondents were interested in receiving psychological support during the pandemic, while 200 (76%) expressed interest beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although depression, anxiety, and stress among IBD patients during the pandemic were common, their frequency was similar to pre-pandemic rates and recent general population levels. Ensuring easy access to personalized risk information with targeted psychological support may mitigate psychological burden as patients reintegrate into society and deal with future COVID-19 waves.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

The effects of COVID-19 on IBD prescribing and service provision in a UK tertiary centre.

BACKGROUND: To quantify the effects of COVID-19 on our inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit, including service provision, prescribing practices and use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: We performed a single centre retrospective observational cohort study. Data was extracted from our IBD database, electronic patient records and radiology/endoscopy reporting systems between 16/3/20-17/4/20 and the corresponding period in 2019. RESULTS: A similar number of patients commenced biologic therapy before COVID-19 (n = 37) and during the pandemic (n = 36). Patients in the pre-COVID-19 cohort were older (median 36 vs 29 years, P = 0.009) with a longer median disease duration (9.3 vs 5.2 years, P = 0.02). During COVID-19 there was a nonsignificant increase in prescribing of vedolizumab (8/37, 22% vs 14/36, 39%, P = 0.13) and a higher proportion of patients were anti-TNF-naïve (3/17, 18% vs 18/24, 74%, P = 0.0004). There was a reduction in use of concomitant immunomodulators (22/29, 76% vs 4/34, 12%, P < 0.0001) and increased biologic use in thiopurine-naïve patients (3/37, 8% vs 15/36, 42%, P = 0.001). Use of TDM fell by 75% (240 vs 59 tests). Outpatient appointments fell by 68% and were conducted via telemedicine. MRI scanning, endoscopy, luminal surgery and inpatient numbers fell by 87%, 85%, 100% and 82% respectively. IBD Clinical Nurse Specialist and Pharmacist helpline contacts increased by 76% and 228% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed prescribing differences during COVID-19, bypassing the initiation of immunomodulators and/or anti-TNF therapy in favour of vedolizumab with a reduction in immunomodulator prescribing. We also observed a rapid reorganisation of service provision, including a shift towards telemedicine and online solutions.

Adaptations to the current ECCO/ESPGHAN guidelines on the management of paediatric acute severe colitis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a RAND appropriateness panel.

OBJECTIVE: Paediatric acute severe colitis (ASC) management during the novel SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic is challenging due to reliance on immunosuppression and the potential for surgery. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation/European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition guidelines for comparison. DESIGN: We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 paediatric gastroenterologists and paediatric experts in surgery, rheumatology, respiratory and infectious diseases. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey. RESULTS: Panellists recommended patients with ASC have a SARS-CoV-2 swab and expedited biological screening on admission and should be isolated. A positive swab should trigger discussion with a COVID-19 specialist. Sigmoidoscopy was recommended prior to escalation to second-line therapy or colectomy. Methylprednisolone was considered appropriate first-line management in all, including those with symptomatic COVID-19. Thromboprophylaxis was also recommended in all. In patients requiring second-line therapy, infliximab was considered appropriate irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status. Delaying colectomy due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was considered inappropriate. Corticosteroid tapering over 8-10 weeks was deemed appropriate for all. After successful corticosteroid rescue, thiopurine maintenance was rated appropriate in patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 swab and asymptomatic patients with positive swab but uncertain in symptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our COVID-19-specific adaptations to paediatric ASC guidelines using a RAND panel generally support existing recommendations, particularly the use of corticosteroids and escalation to infliximab, irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status. Consideration of routine prophylactic anticoagulation was recommended.

Adaptations to the British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of acute severe UC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a RAND appropriateness panel.

OBJECTIVE: Management of acute severe UC (ASUC) during the novel COVID-19 pandemic presents significant dilemmas. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using current British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines as a reference point. DESIGN: We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 gastroenterologists and an IBD nurse consultant supplemented by surgical and COVID-19 experts. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASUC in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Median scores and disagreement index (DI) were calculated. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey. RESULTS: Panellists recommended that patients with ASUC should be isolated throughout their hospital stay and should have a SARS-CoV-2 swab performed on admission. Patients with a positive swab should be discussed with COVID-19 specialists. As per BSG guidance, intravenous hydrocortisone was considered appropriate as initial management; only in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was its use deemed uncertain. In patients requiring rescue therapy, infliximab with continuing steroids was recommended. Delaying colectomy because of COVID-19 was deemed inappropriate. Steroid tapering as per BSG guidance was deemed appropriate for all patients apart from those with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom a 4-6 week taper was preferred. Post-ASUC maintenance therapy was dependent on SARS-CoV-2 status but, in general, biologics were more likely to be deemed appropriate than azathioprine or tofacitinib. Panellists deemed prophylactic anticoagulation postdischarge to be appropriate in patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab. CONCLUSION: We have suggested COVID-19-specific adaptations to the BSG ASUC guideline using a RAND panel.