Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
American Journal of Gastroenterology ; 117(10 Supplement 2):S662, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2322376

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) harbor a higher risk of deep venous thrombosis and venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to healthy individuals. Previous studies, including a large meta-analysis, estimate the risk of VTE incidence to be almost 2-3 times baseline. Guidelines, therefore, recommend VTE prophylaxis in most inpatients with IBD. While previous studies have demonstrated less than ideal adherence with these guidelines, we sought to determine the rate of VTE prophylaxis at an academic medical center. Method(s): A retrospective chart review of inpatients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis admitted to a tertiary medical center in Bronx, NY from 1/2015 to 2/2020 was performed. All patients who were admitted with a primary gynecological or psychiatric disorder, COVID infection, or known hypercoagulable disorder were excluded. Orders for pharmacologic and mechanical VTE prophylaxis at any point during the patient's admission were ed. Using ICD10 codes, IBD patients with acute VTE variations were identified. Clinical and demographic variables were analyzed for their association with VTE prophylaxis. Two-sample t-tests and Fisher's exact tests were used as appropriate. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Result(s): A total of 1670 patients with IBD were identified among whom 1280 (76.7%) were prescribed either pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis during their hospital admission. 70 patients were excluded from the analysis of development of VTE because their diagnosis of VTE was prior to their admission date. Older age (p<.0001), higher BMI (p<.0001), female sex (p=.001), havingMedicare insurance (p<.0001) were associated with VTE prophylaxis ordering (see Table). There was a VTE incidence of 6.2% (n=98/1600) of the IBD patients in our cohort, with 3/388 patients (0.8%) not being prescribed prophylaxis and 95/1212 (7.8%) being prescribed prophylaxis (p< 0.001). Conclusion(s): Contrary to other studies, we show that VTE prophylaxis rates may not be associated with a reduction in VTE incidence during hospitalization. While bias by indication may be contributing to this finding with those at greatest risk more likely to receive prophylaxis, other factors may be involved. Further studies are warranted. (Table Presented).

2.
Gastroenterology ; 162(7):S-593, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1967335

ABSTRACT

Background: Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly effective in preventing most infections, serious disease, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 in the general population, but data regarding their use and efficacy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited. In this study we assessed the use patterns and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IBD. Methods: We established a multicenter matched case-control cohort of patients with IBD [Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC)] and COVID-19 between February 2020 and December 2020 for the Surveillance of COVID-19 Impact on Long- Term Outcomes in IBD (SCOUT IBD) study. Cases were defined by the presence of COVID- 19-related symptoms and confirmatory SARS-CoV-2 PCR or IgG testing and non-COVID controls were defined as absence of symptoms and both a negative PCR and IgG in 2020. Cases were matched 1:1 to controls based on age, sex and IBD type. Data were collected on vaccine administration in 2021 and incidence of interval COVID-19 (defined as above) between January and September 2021. Results: The total cohort included 502 patients with IBD [UC (n=222, 44%), CD (n=278, 55%), IBD-undefined (n=2, 1%)] of whom 251 had a history of COVID-19 in 2020. The overall vaccination rate was 61% (n=306) with 189 (62%) patients receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, 101 (33%) Moderna, and 12 (4%) Johnson & Johnson. Vaccinated patients were more likely to be older (P=0.02), female (P=0.07), have a co-morbidity (cardiovascular, respiratory, renal) (P=0.04), or currently be on a biologic (P=0.01), and less likely to have had prior COVID-19 (P<0.001) than patients who did not get vaccinated (Table 1). The overall incidence of interval COVID-19 was 1.6% (N=8), with an infection rate of 0.3% (1/311) in vaccinated patients vs. 3.7% (7/184) in unvaccinated patients (P<0.01). Of infections occurring in unvaccinated patients, 1/7 (14.2%) was severe and required hospitalization requiring ICU admission, and the breakthrough infection in the vaccinated patient was mild and self-limited. COVID-19 reinfection occurred in one patient (0.4%) with prior COVID-19 who was unvaccinated. Under multivariable logistic regression, COVID-19 vaccination (aOR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.41) and prior COVID-19 infection (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.63) were highly protective against interval COVID-19. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in patients with IBD and markedly reduce the incidence of COVID-19. Prior COVID-19 is also protective against subsequent infection, although re-infections may occur at a very low rate. These results reaffirm the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD.(Table Presented)(Table Presented)

3.
Gastroenterology ; 162(7):S-592-S-593, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1967334

ABSTRACT

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and IBD-related biologic therapies are not associated with worse outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), however, data are lacking regarding the long-term impact of COVID-19 and its inflammatory sequelae on the disease course of IBD. We aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with IBD and COVID-19. Methods: We performed a multicenter matched case-control study of patients with IBD [Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC)] and COVID-19 between February 2020 and December 2020 at 5 large health systems. Cases were defined by the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms and confirmatory SARS-CoV-2 PCR or IgG testing. Non-COVID controls were defined as absence of symptoms and both a negative PCR and IgG during the study entry period. Cases were matched 1:1 to controls based on age, sex and IBD type. The primary composite outcome was IBD-related hospitalization or surgery, and outcomes were sub-stratified by COVID-19 severity. Results: We identified 251 cases with IBD [UC (n=111, 44%), CD (n=139, 55%)] and confirmed COVID-19, matched with 251 non-COVID-19 IBD controls, with a median follow-up of 394 days. COVID-19 patients had higher rates of prior IBD-related hospitalizations (36% vs. 27%;P=0.03), corticosteroid use (75% vs. 65%;P=0.06), and biologic exposure (73% vs. 64%;P=0.04) than controls. There were no differences in UC extent or CD phenotype between groups. In COVID-19 positive patients, the most common symptoms were fever (61%), cough (48%), fatigue (30%) and diarrhea (28%). Severe COVID-19 (defined as hospitalization, ICU requirement or mechanical ventilation) occurred in 16% (n=39) of cases. The primary composite outcome of IBD-related hospitalization or surgery occurred in 12% (n=38) of cases vs. 15% (n=29) of controls (P=0.24;Table 1). When further stratified by COVID-19 severity, the incidence of the primary composite outcome was highest in patients with severe COVID-19, followed by controls and non-severe COVID-19 (Figure 1). Under multivariate Cox regression, severe COVID-19 remained a predictor of worse IBD outcomes (aHR 2.09, 95% CI 0.91-4.86) whereas non-severe COVID-19 was associated with decreased risk (aHR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28- 0.99). Prior IBD-related hospitalization or surgery (aHR 3.10, 95% CI 1.70-6.57) and current steroid use (aHR 2.17, 95% CI 0.95-4.94) were also predictive of worse IBD outcomes. Conclusion: In this matched case-control study, a history of any COVID-19 infection did not appear to exacerbate the course of IBD, however, severe COVID-19 was associated with worse IBD outcomes. These data suggest that the inflammatory sequelae of COVID-19 may adversely impact the subsequent disease course of IBD. Further studies are required to confirm these associations, which underscore the importance of COVID-19 mitigation measures.(Table Presented) (Figure Presented)

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL