Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
United European Gastroenterology Journal ; 9(SUPPL 8):415, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1490971


Introduction: More than 2.5 million people in Europe are diagnosed with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). IBD affects the quality of life, but also has important consequences for health systems. It remains unknown if variations in IBD care and education differs across Europe and to help address this question, we conducted this European Variation In IBD PracticE suRvey (VIPER) to study potential differences. Aims & Methods: This trainee-initiated survey, run through SurveyMonkey ®, consisted of 47 questions inquiring basic demographics, IBD training and clinical care. The survey was distributed through social media and national GI societies from December 2020 - January 2021. Results were compared according to GDP per capita, for which countries were divided into 2 groups (low/high income, according to the World Bank). Differences between groups were calculated using the chi2 statistic. Results: The online survey was completed by 1268 participants from 39 European countries. Most of the participants are specialists (65.3 %), followed by fellows in training (>/< 3 years, 19.1%, 15.6 %). Majority of the responders are working in academic institutions (50.4 %), others in public/ district hospitals (33.3 %) or private practices (16.3 %). Despite significant differences in access to IBD-specific training between high (56.4%) and low (38.5%) GDP countries (p<0.001), majority of clinicians feels comfortable in treating IBD (77.2% vs 72.0%, p=0.04). GDP was not a factor that dictated confidence in treating patients. IBD patients seen per week, IBD boards and especially IBD specific training were factors increasing confidence in managing IBD patients. Interestingly, a difference in availability of dedicated IBD units could be observed (58.5% vs 39.7%, p<0.001), as well as an inequality in multidisciplinary meetings (72.6% vs 40.2%, p<0.001), which often take place on a weekly basis (53.0%). In high GDP countries, IBD nurses are more common (86.2%) than in low GDP countries (36.0%, p<0.001), which is mirrored by differences in nurse-led IBD clinics (40.6% vs 13.8%, p<0.001). IBD dieticians (32.4% vs 16.6%) and psychologists (16.7% vs 7.5%) are mainly present in high GDP countries (p<0.001). In the current COVID era, telemedicine is available in 58.4% vs 21.4% of the high/low GDP countries respectively (p<0.001), as well as urgent flare clinics (58.6% vs 38.7%, p<0.001) and endoscopy within 24 hours if needed (83.0% vs 86.7% p=0.1). Treat-to-target approaches are implemented everywhere (85.0%), though access to biologicals and small molecules differs significantly. Almost all (94.7%) use faecal calprotectin for routine monitoring, whereas half also use intestinal ultrasound (47.9%). Conclusion: A lot of variability in IBD practice exists across Europe, with marked differences between high vs low GDP countries. Further work is required to help address some of these inequalities, aiming to improve and standardise IBD care across Europe.

United European Gastroenterology Journal ; 9(SUPPL 8):429, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1490934


Introduction: COVID-19 has evolved into a global health crisis, variably affecting the management of patients with chronic illnesses. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may represent a vulnerable population due to the frequent administration of immune-modifying treatments. Aims & Methods: We aimed to depict the natural history of COVID-19 infection in Greek patients with IBD at a nationwide level via the unbiased reporting of all cases that were registered during the first and second waves of the pandemic. Following a national call from the Hellenic Society for the study of IBD, we enrolled all IBD patients with established diagnoses of COVID-19. Clinical and epidemiological data, including COVID-19 modifying factors and IBDassociated therapies, were analyzed against adverse outcomes (hospitalization, ICU admission, and death). Results: We identified 160 IBD patients who were diagnosed with COVID- 19 during the study period (male:56.9%;mean age=41.6 [SD=14.8] years;CD:64.4%). Adverse outcomes were reported in 34 patients (21.3%), including 3 ICU admissions (1.9%) and 2 deaths (1.3%). As shown in the table prognostic factor for adverse events due to COVID-19 in IBD patients were sought. Through multivariate logistic regression age (OR=1.04, 95% CI=1-1.08) and dyspnoea at presentation (OR=8.72, 95% CI=2.14-35.57) were identified as negative prognostic factors while there was also a tendency for fever at presentation (OR=3.23, 95% CI=0.91-11.43). In contrast, treatment with biologics, in particular anti-TNF agents, exerted a protective effect against an unfavorable course COVID-19 (OR=0.33, 95% CI=0.13-0.84). Patients on subcutaneous biologics were more likely to halt treatment due to the infection as compared to those on intravenous medications. Conclusion: IBD patients who developed COVID-19 had a benign course with adverse outcomes being scarce. Treatment with biologics had a beneficial effect, supporting the continuation of therapy during the pandemic. (Table Presented).