RESUMEN
Effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 are already available and offer a promising action to control the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Background Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. Methods A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. Results Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male;mean age 47 ± 16 years;Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n = 254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. Conclusions IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnosis by hindering the path to elimination, although probably in an uneven manner depending on the risk group and diagnostic strategy. METHODS: We recorded the requests of antibodies/RNA by venipuncture at the hospital and primary care centres (centralised), as well as the requests via venipuncture or dried blood spot test at prison and drug treatment centres referred for central processing (integrated decentralised), for one year before and after the onset of the COVID-19 health alarm. RESULTS: A total of 20,600 tests (51% male, 47.9±15.8 years) were recorded. Among them, 96.5% of the cases came from centralised and 3.5% from decentralised settings, with an active infection rate of 0.2% and 2.3% (p<0.001), respectively. There was a 31.3% decrease in the number of requests during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period, which was more pronounced in decentralised diagnosis than centralised (60 vs. 30%, p<0.001). In addition, there was a 31.5% decline in screening and an 18.2% decrease in the diagnosis of new cases of active infection, showing a statistically significant decrease in decentralised compared to centralised diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in HCV diagnostic effort has been observed, especially in decentralised strategies with a higher prevalence of infection. Our results suggest a diagnostic delay that will prevent Spain from reaching the elimination target in 2023, and therefore the reactivation of strategies particularly targeting the priority groups is urgently required.
RESUMEN
Effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 are already available and offer a promising action to control the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. BACKGROUND: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. RESULTS: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ambulatory clinic visits were replaced by the implementation of telehealth modalities in most inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) units. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, efficiency, patient satisfaction, and acceptability of using telephone consultation in an IBD unit. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in IBD patients who underwent telephone consultation during COVID-19 lockdown (between 16th March and 13th April 2020). To assess the efficacy of this telephone consultation (lockdown visit), nonscheduled visits, emergency consultation, hospital admission, and surgery from lockdown visit to the next scheduled consultation (post-lockdown) were checked. To evaluate efficiency, the time between lockdown visit and post-lockdown consultation was compared with previous consultation (pre-lockdown), and the total number of visits 12 months before and after lockdown visit was checked. A telephone survey was designed to rate perception for a telephone consultation. RESULTS: Out of a total of 274 patients, 220 patients (52.2% male; mean age 49 ± 16 years; Crohn's disease, n = 126; ulcerative colitis, n = 83; indeterminate colitis, n = 11) were included. Only one patient was consulted at the emergency department, 11 patients needed to rearrange the visit, and none patient underwent surgery before the scheduled post-lockdown visit. The interval to post-lockdown visit compared to pre-lockdown visit increased in 37.7% of patients. The satisfaction survey (n = 185) revealed that 94.6% perceived it was effective. However, 44.4% of patients rather prefer on-site consultation for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic was shown to be effective and efficient to care for IBD patients. In addition, telephone consultation is well accepted by patients in non-extended follow-up periods.