Favorable vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response profile in patients undergoing immune-modifying therapies.

BACKGROUNDPatients undergoing immune-modifying therapies demonstrate a reduced humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination, but we lack a proper evaluation of the effect of such therapies on vaccine-induced T cell responses.METHODSWe longitudinally characterized humoral and spike-specific T cell responses in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), who were on antimetabolite therapy (azathioprine or methotrexate), TNF inhibitors, and/or other biologic treatment (anti-integrin or anti-p40) for up to 6 months after completing 2-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.RESULTSWe demonstrate that a spike-specific T cell response was not only induced in treated patients with IBD at levels similar to those of healthy individuals, but also sustained at higher magnitude for up to 6 months after vaccination, particularly in those treated with TNF inhibitor therapy. Furthermore, the spike-specific T cell response in these patients was mainly preserved against mutations present in SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) and characterized by a Th1/IL-10 cytokine profile.CONCLUSIONDespite the humoral response defects, patients under immune-modifying therapies demonstrated a favorable profile of vaccine-induced T cell responses that might still provide a layer of COVID-19 protection.FUNDINGThis study was funded by the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) Catalyst Grant (FY2021ES) and the National Research Fund Competitive Research Programme (NRF-CRP25-2020-0003).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the COVID-19 associated liver injury.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 5 million people globally. Data on the prevalence and degree of COVID-19 associated liver injury among patients with COVID-19 remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence and degree of liver injury between patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library), from inception to 24th April 2020. We included all adult human studies (>20 subjects) regardless of language, region or publication date or status. We assessed the pooled odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Among 1543 citations, there were 24 studies (5961 subjects) which fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio for elevated ALT (OR = 2.5, 95%CI: 1.6-3.7, I2 = 57%), AST (OR = 3.4, 95%CI: 2.3-5.0, I2 = 56%), hyperbilirubinemia (OR = 1.7, 95%CI: 1.2-2.5, I2 = 0%) and hypoalbuminemia (OR = 7.1, 95%CI: 2.1-24.1, I2 = 71%) were higher subjects in critical COVID-19. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 associated liver injury is more common in severe COVID-19 than non-severe COVID-19. Physicians should be aware of possible progression to severe disease in subjects with COVID-19-associated liver injury.

Impact of enhanced personal protective equipment on colonoscopy performance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and study aims Using personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce risk of disease transmission. During the COVID-19 pandemic, enhanced PPE (EPPE) is recommended when performing endoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the impact of EPPE on colonoscopy performance when compared to standard PPE (SPPE). Patients and methods A review of electronic medical records and endoscopy reports of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy during two similar one-month time periods (in 2019 and during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020) was performed. SPPE was used in 2019 and EPPE was used in 2020. Patient clinical data and procedure-related information were captured and analyzed. The primary outcomes were time to cecum (TTC) and total procedure time. Secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Statistical analysis was performed using STATA v16.1. Results Two hundred and forty-seven colonoscopy procedures were analyzed. Baseline demographics and indications for colonoscopy of patients in both groups were similar. There were no significant differences in median TTC (10.0 vs 10.0 min, P  = 0.524) or total procedure time (22.5 vs 23.0 min, P  = 0.946) between colonoscopy performed in SPPE and EPPE. The ADR, PDR and CIR were also similar. Conclusion Our findings suggest that use of EPPE does not affect colonoscopy performance.