COVID-19 and celiac disease: a review.

The aim of this review is to broadly cover how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected individuals with celiac disease, including perceived risk, risk of contraction or severe infection, considerations regarding vaccination, access to gluten-free food during the pandemic, and possible long-term changes to the practice of celiac disease management spurred by the pandemic. While initially there was increased perceived risk about COVID-19 in the celiac disease population, studies have found that individuals with celiac disease are not at an increased risk of contracting or having a severe course compared to the general population. There is not yet evidence that COVID-19 infection will lead to an increase in celiac disease incidence, though more research on this topic with longer-term follow-up is necessary to make this determination. Limited access to in-person visits led to an increase in telemedicine, which was adopted swiftly by this patient population and may offer improved access in the long term. In summary, individuals with celiac disease do not appear to be at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 or having a more severe disease course.

Public and Population Health in U.S. Medical Education: A Review of Guidance in Extraordinary Times.

Generations of medical educators have recommended including public and population health (PPH) content in the training of U.S. physicians. The COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, epidemic gun violence, and the existential threats caused by climate change are currently unsubtle reminders of the essential nature of PPH in medical education and practice. To assess the state of PPH content in medical education, the authors reviewed relevant guidance, including policies, standards, and recommendations from national bodies that represent and oversee medical education for physicians with MD degrees. Findings confirm that guidance across the medical education continuum, from premedical education to continuing professional development, increasingly includes PPH elements that vary in specificity and breadth. Graduate medical education policies present the most comprehensive approach in both primary care and subspecialty fields. Behavioral, quantitative, social, and systems sciences are represented, although not uniformly, in guidance for every phase of training. Quantitative PPH skills are frequently presented in the context of research, but not in relation to the development of population health perspectives (e.g., evidence-based medicine, quality improvement, policy development). The interdependence between governmental public health and medical practice, environmental health, and the impact of structural racism and other systems of oppression on health are urgent concerns, yet are not consistently or explicitly included in curricular guidance. To prepare physicians to meet the health needs of patients and communities, educators should identify and address gaps and inconsistencies in PPH curricula and related guidance. Re-examinations of public health and health care systems in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic support the importance of PPH in physician training and practice, as physicians can help to bridge clinical and public health systems. This review provides an inventory of existing guidance (presented in the appendices) to assist educators in establishing PPH as an essential foundation of physician training and practice.

Impact of social determinants of health on colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the COVID reopening phase.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Procedural delays due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may exacerbate disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) preventive care. We aimed to measure racial and socioeconomic disparities in the prioritization of CRC screening or adenoma surveillance during the COVID reopening period. METHODS: We identified CRC screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed during two time periods: (1) 9 June 2019-30 September 2019 (pre-COVID) and (2) 9 June 2020-30 September 2020 (COVID reopening). We recorded the procedure indication, patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, insurance status and zip code. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors independently associated with undergoing colonoscopy in the COVID reopening era. RESULTS: We identified 1473 colonoscopies for CRC screening or adenoma surveillance; 890 occurred in the pre-COVID period and 583 occurred in the COVID reopening period. In total 342 (38.4%) pre-COVID patients underwent adenoma surveillance and 548 (61.6%) underwent CRC screening; in the COVID reopening cohort, 257 (44.1%) underwent adenoma surveillance and 326 (55.9%) underwent CRC screening (P = 0.031). This increased proportion of surveillance procedures in the reopening cohort was statistically significant on multivariable analysis [odds ratio (OR), 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.001-1.58]. Black patients comprised 17.4% of the pre-COVID cohort, which declined to 15.3% (P = 0.613). There was a trend toward an inverse association between reopening phase colonoscopy and Medicaid insurance compared with commercial insurance (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.04). No significant associations were found between reopening phase colonoscopy and the remaining variables. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID reopening period, colonoscopies for CRC fell by over one-third with significantly more surveillance than screening procedures. Nonwhite patients and non-English speakers comprised a shrinking proportion in the COVID reopening period.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Endoscopies before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed hospital workflows. This study aimed to characterize differences in gastrointestinal endoscopies in the New York metropolitan region before, during, and after the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Across 3 hospitals, we compared demographics, indications, and yield of endoscopies before and after March 16, 2020, the date on which elective procedures were canceled, as well as a recovery period for 5 months after they were resumed. RESULTS: A total of 9,401 procedures before and 332 procedures during the first wave were performed. Females comprised 57 and 44% of patients (p < 0.01), respectively. There was a decline in the proportion of Black (15 vs. 7%, p < 0.02) and Hispanic patients (29 vs. 16%, p < 0.02) undergoing outpatient procedures. There was a significant rise in urgent indications such as bleeding and jaundice. There was an increase in the diagnostic yield of all esophagogastroduodenoscopies for bleeding (p < 0.01) and of outpatient endoscopic ultrasounds for malignancy (p = 0.01), but no increase in yield of inpatient colonoscopy for bleeding. A review of 7,475 procedures during the recovery period showed a return to many nonurgent indications, but still showed decreased proportions of Hispanic and male patients compared to the prepandemic period. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Lower proportions of Black and Hispanic patients underwent outpatient endoscopies during and after the first wave. The proportion of procedures done for emergent indications and their diagnostic yield increased during the pandemic, suggesting a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. In resource-sparing conditions, clinicians should pay attention to thresholds to perform colonoscopy for bleeding and to racial disparities in outpatient healthcare access.

Effect of famotidine on hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. CONCLUSION: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.

An International Reporting Registry of Patients With Celiac Disease and COVID-19: Initial Results From SECURE-CELIAC.

Surveillance Epidemiology Under Research Exclusion for Celiac Disease (SECURE-CELIAC) is an international, de-identified adult and pediatric database created to monitor and report on the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in patients with celiac disease (CD).

Celiac disease: clinical update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review highlights literature from the past year and explores the impact on current understanding of celiac disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. RECENT FINDINGS: In contrast to earlier clinical trials, recent data suggests that early gluten introduction may protect against the development of celiac disease. Celiac disease is underdiagnosed, associated with high burden of disease and linked to excess mortality risk, yet, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the utility of mass screening in asymptomatic individuals. The gut microbiome is increasingly implicated in celiac disease pathogenesis, although the exact mechanism is undefined. Probiotics have been proposed as a disease-modifying option for celiac disease but most studies assessing efficacy are of low-quality. Patients with celiac disease do not appear to be at increased risk of contracting or developing adverse outcomes from COVID-19. Little is known about the pathogenesis of nonceliac gluten sensitivity; however, recent findings suggest an autoimmune basis for the condition. SUMMARY: Current understanding of celiac disease continues to advance, though significant knowledge gaps remain. Large, rigorous, prospectively designed studies are needed to further characterize celiac disease pathogenesis, management and therapeutic options.

Association of Search Query Interest in Gastrointestinal Symptoms With COVID-19 Diagnosis in the United States: Infodemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a novel viral illness that has rapidly spread worldwide. While the disease primarily presents as a respiratory illness, gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea have been reported in up to one-third of confirmed cases, and patients may have mild symptoms that do not prompt them to seek medical attention. Internet-based infodemiology offers an approach to studying symptoms at a population level, even in individuals who do not seek medical care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if a correlation exists between internet searches for gastrointestinal symptoms and the confirmed case count of COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: The search terms chosen for analysis in this study included common gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Furthermore, the search terms fever and cough were used as positive controls, and constipation was used as a negative control. Daily query shares for the selected symptoms were obtained from Google Trends between October 1, 2019 and June 15, 2020 for all US states. These shares were divided into two time periods: pre-COVID-19 (prior to March 1) and post-COVID-19 (March 1-June 15). Confirmed COVID-19 case numbers were obtained from the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering data repository. Moving averages of the daily query shares (normalized to baseline pre-COVID-19) were then analyzed against the confirmed disease case count and daily new cases to establish a temporal relationship. RESULTS: The relative search query shares of many symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and constipation, remained near or below baseline throughout the time period studied; however, there were notable increases in searches for the positive control symptoms of fever and cough as well as for diarrhea. These increases in daily search queries for fever, cough, and diarrhea preceded the rapid rise in number of cases by approximately 10 to 14 days. The search volumes for these terms began declining after mid-March despite the continued rises in cumulative cases and daily new case counts. CONCLUSIONS: Google searches for symptoms may precede the actual rises in cases and hospitalizations during pandemics. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, this study demonstrates that internet search queries for fever, cough, and diarrhea increased prior to the increased confirmed case count by available testing during the early weeks of the pandemic in the United States. While the search volumes eventually decreased significantly as the number of cases continued to rise, internet query search data may still be a useful tool at a population level to identify areas of active disease transmission at the cusp of new outbreaks.

Risk perception and knowledge of COVID-19 in patients with celiac disease.

BACKGROUND: We recently demonstrated that the odds of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with celiac disease (CeD) is similar to that of the general population. However, how patients with CeD perceive their COVID-19 risk may differ from their actual risk. AIM: To investigate risk perceptions of contracting COVID-19 in patients with CeD and determine the factors that may influence their perception. METHODS: We distributed a survey throughout 10 countries between March and June 2020 and collected data on demographics, diet, COVID-19 testing, and risk perceptions of COVID-19 in patients with CeD. Participants were recruited through various celiac associations, clinic visits, and social media. Risk perception was assessed by asking individuals whether they believe patients with CeD are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when compared to the general population. Logistic regression was used to determine the influencing factors associated with COVID-19 risk perception, such as age, sex, adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD), and comorbidities such as cardiac conditions, respiratory conditions, and diabetes. Data was presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULTS: A total of 10737 participants with CeD completed the survey. From them, 6019 (56.1%) patients with CeD perceived they were at a higher risk or were unsure if they were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the non-CeD population. A greater proportion of patients with CeD perceived an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when compared to infections in general due to their CeD (56.1% vs 26.7%, P < 0.0001). Consequently, 34.8% reported taking extra COVID-19 precautions as a result of their CeD. Members of celiac associations were less likely to perceive an increased risk of COVID-19 when compared to non-members (49.5% vs 57.4%, P < 0.0001). Older age (aOR: 0.99; 95%CI: 0.99 to 0.99, P < 0.001), male sex (aOR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.76 to 0.93, P = 0.001), and strict adherence to a GFD (aOR: 0.89; 95%CI: 0.82 to 0.96, P = 0.007) were associated with a lower perception of COVID-19 risk and the presence of comorbidities was associated with a higher perception of COVID-19 risk (aOR: 1.38; 95%CI: 1.22 to 1.54, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, high levels of risk perceptions, such as those found in patients with CeD, may increase an individual's pandemic-related stress and contribute to negative mental health consequences. Therefore, it is encouraged that public health officials maintain consistent communication with the public and healthcare providers with the celiac community. Future studies specifically evaluating mental health in CeD could help determine the consequences of increased risk perceptions in this population.

Risk of Severe Covid-19 in Patients with Celiac Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with celiac disease (CeD) are at increased risk of certain viral infections and of pneumococcal pneumonia, raising concerns that they may be susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We aimed to quantify the association between CeD and severe outcomes related to Covid-19. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study, identifying individuals with CeD in Sweden, as defined by small intestinal villus atrophy diagnosed at all (n=28) Swedish pathology departments during the years spanning 1969-2017, and alive on February 1, 2020. We compared these patients to controls matched by sex, age, county, and calendar period. We performed Cox proportional hazards with follow-up through July 31, 2020, assessing risk of 1) hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 (co-primary outcome); and 2) severe disease as defined by admission to intensive care unit and/or death attributed to Covid-19 (co-primary outcome). RESULTS: Among patients with CeD (n=40,963) and controls (n=183,892), the risk of hospital admission for Covid-19 was 2.9 and 2.2 per 1000 person-years respectively. After adjusting for comorbidities, the risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 was not significantly increased in patients with CeD (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.80-1.50), nor was the risk of severe Covid-19 increased (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.59-1.59). Results were similarly null when we compared CeD patients to their non-CeD siblings with regard to these outcomes. Among all patients with CeD and controls hospitalized with a diagnosis of Covid-19 (n=58 and n=202, respectively), there was no significant difference in mortality (HR for CeD compared to controls 0.96; 95% CI 0.46-2.02). CONCLUSION: In this population-based study, CeD was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 or intensive care unit and/or death attributed to Covid-19.

Prevalence of Clostridioides difficile and Other Gastrointestinal Pathogens in Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with COVID-19, but prevalence of co-infection with enteric pathogens is unknown. AIMS: This study assessed the prevalence of enteric infections among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We evaluated 4973 hospitalized patients ≥ 18 years of age tested for COVID-19 from March 11 through April 28, 2020, at two academic hospitals. The primary exposure was a positive COVID-19 test. The primary outcome was detection of a gastrointestinal pathogen by PCR stool testing. RESULTS: Among 4973 hospitalized individuals, 311 were tested for gastrointestinal infections (204 COVID-19 positive, 107 COVID-19 negative). Patients with COVID-19 were less likely to test positive compared to patients without COVID-19 (10% vs 22%, p < 0.01). This trend was driven by lower rates of non-C.difficile infections (11% vs 22% in COVID-19 positive vs. negative, respectively, p = 0.04), but not C. difficile infection (5.1% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.33). On multivariable analysis, infection with COVID-19 remained significantly associated with lower odds of concurrent GI infection (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.97), again driven by reduced non-C.difficile infection. Testing for both C.difficile and non-C.difficile enteric infection decreased dramatically during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Pathogens aside from C.difficile do not appear to be a significant contributor to diarrhea in COVID-19 positive patients.

Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Autoimmune Disease and COVID-19: A Matched Cohort Study From New York City.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of autoimmune (AI) disease on the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, or death from COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 186 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and April 15, 2020 at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The cohort included 62 patients with AI disease and 124 age- and sex-matched controls. The primary outcome was a composite of ICU admission, intubation, and death, with secondary outcome as time to in-hospital death. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, vital signs, and laboratory values were collected. Conditional logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess the association between AI disease and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with AI disease were more likely to have at least one comorbidity (87.1% vs 74.2%, P = 0.04), take chronic immunosuppressive medications (66.1% vs 4.0%, P < 0.01), and have had a solid organ transplant (16.1% vs 1.6%, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in ICU admission (13.7% vs 19.4%, P = 0.32), intubation (13.7% vs 17.7%, P = 0.47), or death (16.1% vs 14.5%, P = 0.78). On multivariable analysis, patients with AI disease were not at an increased risk for a composite outcome of ICU admission, intubation, or death (ORadj 0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.67). On Cox regression, AI disease was not associated with in-hospital mortality (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.63). CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with AI disease did not have an increased risk of a composite outcome of ICU admission, intubation, or death.

The Risk of Contracting COVID-19 Is Not Increased in Patients With Celiac Disease.

The World Health Organization declared coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic in March 2020. Since then, there are more than 34 million cases of COVID-19 leading to more than 1 million deaths worldwide. Numerous studies suggest that celiac disease (CeD), a chronic immune-mediated gastrointestinal condition triggered by gluten, is associated with an increased risk of respiratory infections.1-3 However, how it relates to the risk of COVID-19 is unknown. To address this gap, we conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate whether patients with self-reported CeD are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.

Disease Course and Outcomes of COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Patients With Gastrointestinal Manifestations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Our understanding of outcomes and disease time course of COVID-19 in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms remains limited. In this study we characterize the disease course and severity of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal manifestations in a large, diverse cohort from the Unites States. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 between March 11 and April 28, 2020 at two affiliated hospitals in New York City. We evaluated the association between GI symptoms and death, and also explored disease duration, from symptom onset to death or discharge. RESULTS: Of 2804 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 1,084 (38.7%) patients with GI symptoms were younger (aOR for age ≥75, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) and had more co-morbidities (aOR for modified Charlson comorbidity score ≥2, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48) compared to those without GI symptoms. Individuals with GI symptoms had better outcomes, with a lower likelihood of intubation (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79) and death (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87), after adjusting for clinical factors. These patients had a longer median disease course from symptom onset to discharge (13.8 vs 10.8 days, log-rank p = .048; among 769 survivors with available symptom onset time), which was driven by longer time from symptom onset to hospitalization (7.4 vs 5.4 days, log-rank P < .01). CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients with GI manifestations of COVID-19 have a reduced risk of intubation and death, but may have a longer overall disease course driven by duration of symptoms prior to hospitalization.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Study from New York City.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the practice of endoscopy, but characteristics of COVID patients undergoing endoscopy have not been adequately described. AIMS: To compare findings, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics of endoscopies performed during the pandemic in patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of adult endoscopies at six academic hospitals in New York between March 16 and April 30, 2020. Patient and procedure characteristics including age, sex, indication, findings, interventions, and outcomes were compared in patients testing positive, negative, or untested for COVID-19. RESULTS: Six hundred and five endoscopies were performed on 545 patients during the study period. There were 84 (13.9%), 255 (42.2%), and 266 (44.0%) procedures on COVID-positive, negative, and untested patients, respectively. COVID patients were more likely to undergo endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding or gastrostomy tube placement, and COVID patients with gastrointestinal bleeding more often required hemostatic interventions on multivariable logistic regression. COVID patients had increased length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and intubation rate. Twenty-seven of 521 patients (5.2%) with no or negative COVID testing prior to endoscopy later tested positive, a median of 13.5 days post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopies in COVID patients were more likely to require interventions, due either to more severe illness or a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. A significant number of patients endoscoped without testing were subsequently found to be COVID-positive. Gastroenterologists in areas affected by the pandemic must adapt to changing patterns of endoscopy practice and ensure pre-endoscopy COVID testing.