Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther ; 56(10): 1460-1474, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2052261

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colitis, Ulcerative , Crohn Disease , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Humans , Pandemics , Ustekinumab , State Medicine , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/diagnosis , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapy , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/complications , Colitis, Ulcerative/diagnosis , Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy , Colitis, Ulcerative/complications , Crohn Disease/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Prednisolone
2.
JMIR Cardio ; 6(2): e37360, 2022 Aug 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993690

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. RESULTS: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies.

3.
BMJ Open Gastroenterol ; 9(1)2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662311

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colitis, Ulcerative , Adolescent , Ambulatory Care , Cohort Studies , Colitis, Ulcerative/diagnosis , Colitis, Ulcerative/epidemiology , Colitis, Ulcerative/therapy , Humans , Inpatients , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
4.
Gut ; 70(Suppl 4):A23, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1506274

ABSTRACT

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.

6.
Arthritis Rheumatol ; 73(5): 731-739, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206744

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether active use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases susceptibility to developing suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the use of other common analgesics. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched cohort study with active comparators, using a large UK primary care data set. The cohort consisted of adult patients age ≥18 years with osteoarthritis (OA) who were followed up from January 30 to July 31, 2020. Patients prescribed an NSAID (excluding topical preparations) were compared to those prescribed either co-codamol (paracetamol and codeine) or co-dydramol (paracetamol and dihydrocodeine). A total of 13,202 patients prescribed NSAIDs were identified, compared to 12,457 patients prescribed the comparator drugs. The primary outcome measure was the documentation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, and the secondary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: During follow-up, the incidence rates of suspected/confirmed COVID-19 were 15.4 and 19.9 per 1,000 person-years in the NSAID-exposed group and comparator group, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 among the unmatched and propensity score-matched OA cohorts, using data from clinical consultations in primary care settings, were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.62-1.10) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.57-1.11), respectively, and adjusted hazard ratios for the risk of all-cause mortality were 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.27) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.61-1.20), respectively. There was no effect modification by age or sex. CONCLUSION: No increase in the risk of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or mortality was observed among patients with OA in a primary care setting who were prescribed NSAIDs as compared to those who received comparator drugs. These results are reassuring and suggest that in the absence of acute illness, NSAIDs can be safely prescribed during the ongoing pandemic.


Subject(s)
Analgesics/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mortality , Osteoarthritis/drug therapy , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Case-Control Studies , Cause of Death , Codeine/analogs & derivatives , Codeine/therapeutic use , Disease Susceptibility , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care , Propensity Score , Proportional Hazards Models , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
7.
Lancet ; 397(10286): 1770-1780, 2021 05 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1131898

ABSTRACT

This Review, in addressing the unacceptably high mortality of patients with liver disease admitted to acute hospitals, reinforces the need for integrated clinical services. The masterplan described is based on regional, geographically sited liver centres, each linked to four to six surrounding district general hospitals-a pattern of care similar to that successfully introduced for stroke services. The plan includes the establishment of a lead and deputy lead clinician in each acute hospital, preferably a hepatologist or gastroenterologist with a special interest in liver disease, who will have prime responsibility for organising the care of admitted patients with liver disease on a 24/7 basis. Essential for the plan is greater access to intensive care units and high-dependency units, in line with the reconfiguration of emergency care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This Review strongly recommends full implementation of alcohol care teams in hospitals and improved working links with acute medical services. We also endorse recommendations from paediatric liver services to improve overall survival figures by diagnosing biliary atresia earlier based on stool colour charts and better caring for patients with impaired cognitive ability and developmental mental health problems. Pilot studies of earlier diagnosis have shown encouraging progress, with 5-6% of previously undiagnosed cases of severe fibrosis or cirrhosis identified through use of a portable FibroScan in primary care. Similar approaches to the detection of early asymptomatic disease are described in accounts from the devolved nations, and the potential of digital technology in improving the value of clinical consultation and screening programmes in primary care is highlighted. The striking contribution of comorbidities, particularly obesity and diabetes (with excess alcohol consumption known to be a major factor in obesity), to mortality in COVID-19 reinforces the need for fiscal and other long delayed regulatory measures to reduce the prevalence of obesity. These measures include the food sugar levy and the introduction of the minimum unit price policy to reduce alcohol consumption. Improving public health, this Review emphasises, will not only mitigate the severity of further waves of COVID-19, but is crucial to reducing the unacceptable burden from liver disease in the UK.


Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Liver Diseases/prevention & control , Early Diagnosis , Humans , Liver Diseases/diagnosis , United Kingdom
8.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 6(4): 271-281, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1062703

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colectomy , Colitis, Ulcerative/diagnosis , Colitis, Ulcerative/surgery , Colonoscopy , Acute Disease , Adult , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Severity of Illness Index
9.
Future Healthc J ; 7(3): e54-e56, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-890680

ABSTRACT

In preparation for the peak of the first wave of COVID-19, many healthcare organisations implemented emergency rotas to ensure they were adequately staffed. These rotas - while addressing the acute issues - are in many cases not sustainable. As we move past the peak and services start resuming, many organisations need to reassess their rotas. There are considerable wellbeing benefits to optimal rostering. In this article we discuss how best to achieve this and suggest a number of key principles, including the following: involvement of staff affected by the rota; taking into account individual circumstances; building in flexibility and adequate time for rest; and designing rotas for different grades of staff together to create stable teams.

12.
Frontline Gastroenterol ; 11(5): 343-350, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-705790

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the challenges in diagnosis, monitoring, support provision in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and explore the adaptations of IBD services. METHODS: Internet-based survey by invitation of IBD services across the UK from 8 to 14 April 2020. RESULTS: Respondents from 125 IBD services completed the survey. The number of whole-time equivalent gastroenterologists and IBD nurses providing elective outpatient care decreased significantly between baseline (median 4, IQR 4-7.5 and median 3, IQR 2-4) to the point of survey (median 2, IQR 1-4.8 and median 2, IQR 1-3) in the 6-week period following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001 for both comparisons). Almost all (94%; 112/119) services reported an increase in IBD helpline activity. Face-to-face clinics were substituted for telephone consultation by 86% and video consultation by 11% of services. A variation in the provision of laboratory faecal calprotectin testing was noted with 27% of services reporting no access to faecal calprotectin, and a further 32% reduced access. There was also significant curtailment of IBD-specific endoscopy and elective surgery. CONCLUSIONS: IBD services in the UK have implemented several adaptive strategies in order to continue to provide safe and high-quality care for patients. National Health Service organisations will need to consider the impact of these changes in current service delivery models and staffing levels when planning exit strategies for post-pandemic IBD care. Careful planning to manage the increased workload and to maintain IBD services is essential to ensure patient safety.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL