Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology ; 116, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1478570

ABSTRACT

Endpoints presented here are the percentage of patients in clinical remission at wk 8, per Adapted Mayo score, and the percentage of patients with a clinical response at wk 2, per partial Adapted Mayo score (both defined in Table footnotes), respectively, in patients who were on concomitant CS at baseline, at a dose maintained to the end of induction and in those treated with UPA without concomitant CS. Similar results were found with the clinical response rate at wk 2, with no difference between UPA-treated patients who received baseline CS (U-ACHIEVE: 58.1%;U-ACCOMPLISH: 55.1%) and those that received UPA without CS (U-ACHIEVE: 61.4%;U-ACCOMPLISH: 67.7%). Subjects were considered "non-responder" for binary endpoints at and after the UC-related corticosteroids censoring time point through the end of the Induction Study. † Dosing for main corticosteroids were as follows: prednisone. 10-40 mg QD, budesonide, 9 mg QD;or beclomethasone, 5 mg QD. § 95% CI for response rate is the synthetic result based on Student's t-distribution from PROC MIANALYZE procedure if there were missing data due to COVID-19 or is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution if there are no missing data due to COVID-19. ‡ 95% CI for response rate difference was calculated based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.

2.
Gut ; 70(10): 1884-1893, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203979

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Delayed second dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination trades maximal effectiveness for a lower level of immunity across more of the population. We investigated whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab have attenuated serological responses to a single dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. DESIGN: Antibody responses and seroconversion rates in infliximab-treated patients (n=865) were compared with a cohort treated with vedolizumab (n=428), a gut-selective anti-integrin α4ß7 monoclonal antibody. Our primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody concentrations, measured using the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibody assay 3-10 weeks after vaccination, in patients without evidence of prior infection. Secondary outcomes were seroconversion rates (defined by a cut-off of 15 U/mL), and antibody responses following past infection or a second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: Geometric mean (SD) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were lower in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following BNT162b2 (6.0 U/mL (5.9) vs 28.8 U/mL (5.4) p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (4.7 U/mL (4.9)) vs 13.8 U/mL (5.9) p<0.0001) vaccines. In our multivariable models, antibody concentrations were lower in infliximab-treated compared with vedolizumab-treated patients who received the BNT162b2 (fold change (FC) 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.40), p<0.0001) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (FC 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.51), p<0.0001) vaccines. In both models, age ≥60 years, immunomodulator use, Crohn's disease and smoking were associated with lower, while non-white ethnicity was associated with higher, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations. Seroconversion rates after a single dose of either vaccine were higher in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is associated with attenuated immunogenicity to a single dose of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection, or a second dose of vaccine, led to seroconversion in most patients. Delayed second dosing should be avoided in patients treated with infliximab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45176516.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Gastrointestinal Agents/adverse effects , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapy , Infliximab/therapeutic use , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Antibody Formation/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests
3.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 6(3): 218-224, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195586

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global health crisis and mass vaccination programmes provide the best opportunity for controlling transmission and protecting populations. Despite the impressive clinical trial results of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines, important unanswered questions remain, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions. In this position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) section and IBD Clinical Research Group, we consider SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategy in patients with IBD. The risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are anticipated to be very low, and we strongly support SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IBD. Based on data from previous studies with other vaccines, there are conceptual concerns that protective immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be diminished in some patients with IBD, such as those taking anti-TNF drugs. However, the benefits of vaccination, even in patients treated with anti-TNF drugs, are likely to outweigh these theoretical concerns. Key areas for further research are discussed, including vaccine hesitancy and its effect in the IBD community, the effect of immunosuppression on vaccine efficacy, and the search for predictive biomarkers of vaccine success.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Gastroenterology/methods , Gastroenterology/trends , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/immunology , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical , United Kingdom , Vaccination/methods
4.
J Crohns Colitis ; 14(12): 1769-1776, 2020 Dec 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066288

ABSTRACT

There have been immediate and profound impacts of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 on health care services worldwide, with major consequences for non COVID-19 related health care. Alongside efforts to reconfigure services and enable continued delivery of safe clinical care for patients with IBD, consideration must also be given to management of IBD research activity. In many centres there has been an effective shutdown of IBD clinical trial activity as research sites have switched focus to either COVID-19 related research or clinical care only. As a result, the early termination of trial programmes, and loss of potentially effective therapeutic options for IBD, has become a real and worrying prospect. Moreover, in many countries research activity has become embedded into clinical care-with clinical trials often providing access to new therapies or strategies-which would otherwise not have been available in standard clinical pathways. This pandemic has significant implications for the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials in IBD. In this Viewpoint, we share our experiences from a clinical and academic perspective in the UK, highlighting the early challenges encountered, and consider implications for patients and staff at research sites, sponsors, research ethics committees, funders, and regulators. We also offer potential solutions both for now and for when we enter a recovery phase from the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Humans , Patient Selection , Research Design/trends , United Kingdom
6.
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.

7.
Gut ; 69(10): 1769-1777, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-591855

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Colitis, Ulcerative/diagnosis , Colitis, Ulcerative/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Infection Control/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Acute Disease , COVID-19 , Colitis, Ulcerative/virology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Gastroenterology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical , United Kingdom
8.
Gut ; 69(6): 984-990, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-72238

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting unprecedented pressures on healthcare systems globally. Early insights have been made possible by rapid sharing of data from China and Italy. In the UK, we have rapidly mobilised inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) centres in order that preparations can be made to protect our patients and the clinical services they rely on. This is a novel coronavirus; much is unknown as to how it will affect people with IBD. We also lack information about the impact of different immunosuppressive medications. To address this uncertainty, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) COVID-19 IBD Working Group has used the best available data and expert opinion to generate a risk grid that groups patients into highest, moderate and lowest risk categories. This grid allows patients to be instructed to follow the UK government's advice for shielding, stringent and standard advice regarding social distancing, respectively. Further considerations are given to service provision, medical and surgical therapy, endoscopy, imaging and clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL