Kappelman, Michael D

Background Reductions in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension were observed early in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The degree to which BP control may have returned to prepandemic levels is unknown. Methods Individuals aged 18 to 85 years with hypertension from 17 health systems participating in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network were identified using electronic health record data collected as part of routine care. BP control (percentage of patients whose most recent BP measurement was <140/<90 mm Hg) was estimated in a series of 12‐month rolling measurement periods from 2017 through 2022 (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018; … January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022). Differences in average BP control between 2022 (January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022) and 2019 (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) were estimated overall (adjusted for age, sex, and race and ethnicity) and by race and ethnicity (adjusted for age and sex). Results Our sample included 1 193 314 persons with hypertension in 2019 (48.9% aged 65–85 years, 52.9% men, 66.2% non‐Hispanic White) and 1 499 418 individuals in 2022 (50.6% aged 65–85 years, 47.1% men, 62.7% non‐Hispanic White). The weighted average BP control dropped from 65.3% in 2019 to 61.8% in 2020 and then partially recovered to 62.6% in 2022 (adjusted mean difference, −2.6 percentage points [95% CI, −5.0 to −0.2]). Non‐Hispanic Asian individuals experienced the largest temporal drop in BP control, declining from 68.4% in 2019 to 63.9% in 2022. Conclusions BP control was disrupted during the COVID‐19 pandemic and had not fully rebounded to prepandemic levels by the end of 2022. Continued surveillance is needed to determine whether the decline in BP control will persist and will result in future adverse cardiovascular events.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with chronic pouchitis and Crohn's-like disease of the pouch (CLDP) are treated with biologics; however, the comparative effectiveness of advanced therapies in this population has not been systematically evaluated. We sought to compare the effectiveness of antitumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) therapies and ustekinumab in patients with chronic inflammatory conditions of the pouch. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. We included patients with chronic pouchitis and CLDP initiating treatment with anti-TNF therapies or ustekinumab. The primary outcome was clinical remission at 6 months after induction. We also evaluated clinical remission at 6 months among patients with chronic pouchitis and CLDP separately. RESULTS: Among 132 patients, 106 (80%) had a diagnosis of CLDP and 82 (62%) initiated therapy with ustekinumab. A significantly higher proportion of patients with CLDP treated with ustekinumab were in clinical remission at 6 months as compared with patients treated with anti-TNF therapy (62% vs 40%, P = 0.027); however, there was no significant difference among patients with chronic pouchitis ( P = 0.946). There was no independent statistical significance in the odds of remission at 6 months among patients with CLDP among patients receiving ustekinumab compared with anti-TNF therapy (adjusted odds ratio 1.91, 95% confidence interval 0.69–5.30) after adjusting for presence of a fistula, number of preoperative advanced therapies, and number of advanced therapies after IPAA. DISCUSSION: These data suggest the potential benefit of ustekinumab in patients with CLDP and should prompt future novel effectiveness evaluations in this population.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-modifying therapies in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increase infection risks, including varicella. METHODS: Using Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a nationwide US commercial insurance claims database (2007–2022), we conducted a retrospective study of 5,368 patients with IBD aged 21 years or younger matched to a non-IBD cohort. The primary outcome was incidence of varicella. RESULTS: Varicella incidence was low in both groups (IBD: 0.570 vs non-IBD: 0.297 per 1,000 person-years, P = 0.23). At year 4, cumulative varicella incidence was 0.27% for IBD and 0.18% for non-IBD ( P = 0.24). No hospitalizations or deaths occurred. DISCUSSION: Despite immune-modifying therapy, pediatric patients with IBD demonstrate low varicella incidence.

Abstract Background Children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may have diminished serologic response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination and increased risk for subsequent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. We sought to describe outcomes among those who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination, characterize SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 1 year post-vaccination, and identify factors associated with durable serologic response. Methods We recruited children with IBD who received ≥2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and prospectively collected data on (1) demographics, IBD characteristics, and therapy and (2) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, testing, and infection symptoms. Serum was obtained for measurement of anti-receptor-binding domain IgG antibodies following a 2-part immunization at 12 and 52 weeks. Results We enrolled 298 participants (mean age 11.9 ± 3.82, 50% female, 67% Crohn’s disease). Symptomatic COVID-19 infection after vaccination occurred in half of the participants, although only 2 (1%) required hospitalization. Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) was associated with higher likelihood of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.5-5.0; P = .001). Nearly all participants (99%) had detectable antibody at Week 52. Children aged 1-5 years had lower 52-week antibody level compared to older children (P = .04), as did those on anti-TNF-α therapy (P = .007) and those who received only 2 vaccine doses prior to Week 52 (P &lt; .001). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 vaccination provides lasting serologic response and protection against severe COVID-19 for most children with IBD, despite the use of lower vaccine doses in younger children and wide-ranging classes of immunosuppressive therapies.

Abstract: Background and Aims The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines are efficacious in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; but there is a lack of data examining if holding immunosuppressive therapy around vaccination improves immune response. We studied the effect of holding IBD medications around the time of vaccination on antibody response and breakthrough COVID-19 infection. Methods Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID is a prospective cohort of individuals with IBD receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Quantitative measurement of anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was performed 8 weeks after completing a vaccination series. Results A total of 1854 patients were included; 59% were on anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] [10% of these on combination therapy], 11% on vedolizumab, and 14% on ustekinumab; 11% of participants held therapy before or after vaccine administration for at least 2 weeks. Antibody levels were similar in participants continuing versus holding anti-TNF monotherapy before or after the second vaccine [BNT162b2: 10 μg/mL vs 8.9 μg/mL; mRNA-1273: 17.5 μg/mL vs 14.5 μg/mL]. Comparable results were seen in those on combination therapy. Antibody titres in those on ustekinumab or vedolizumab were higher compared with anti-TNF users, but there was no significant difference if the drug was held or continued [BNT162b2: 22.5 μg/mL vs 23 μg/mL; mRNA-1273: 88 μg/mL vs 51 μg/mL]. Holding therapy was not associated with decreased rate of COVID-19 infection compared with those not holding therapy [BNT162b2: 28% vs 29%; mRNA-1273: 19% vs 31%]. Conclusion We recommend continuing IBD medications while receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccination without interruption.