Kochhar, Gursimran

Abstract Background Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) are 2 fully human monoclonal antibodies that received emergency-use authorization on December 21, 2021, for pre-exposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients who are moderate–severely immunocompromised. The real-world efficacy of Evusheld in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not known. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database in patients with IBD who received Evusheld compared to patients with IBD who did not receive Evusheld (12.1.2021–10.28.2022). The primary outcome was to assess the risk of COVID-19 within 6 months. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for demographic parameters, comorbid conditions, IBD medications, and history of COVID-19. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Four hundred and eight patients (0.19%) with IBD received Evusheld (mean age 58.6 ± 15.4 years old, female 47.7%) during the study period. After PSM, there was no difference in the risk (aOR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.33–2.35) of COVID-19 in the Evusheld cohort compared to the IBD control cohort. No patients required ICU care or intubation/respiratory support or were deceased in the Evusheld cohort. Conclusions Our study did not show that Evusheld decreases the risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD. Prevention of moderate–severe COVID-19 in these patients should focus on vaccination strategies and early COVID-19 therapies.

Abstract Background There is evidence that SARS-CoV2 infection can increase the risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in the general population. However, the risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not known. Methods The TriNetX database was utilized to conduct a retrospective cohort study in patients with IBD after SARS-CoV2 infection and patients without a SARS-CoV2 infection (IBD control cohort). The primary outcome was to evaluate the risk of HZ between the 2 cohorts. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching was performed for demographic parameters, HZ risk factors and IBD medications between the 2 cohorts. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results After propensity score matching, patients with IBD with a SARS-CoV2 infection were at an increased risk for HZ (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.53-3.04) compared with IBD control cohort in the pre-COVID-19 vaccine era. There was no difference in the risk (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.44-1.75) of a composite outcome of HZ complications (hospitalization, post-herpetic neuralgia, and neurologic complications) between the 2 cohorts. The IBD SARS-CoV2 cohort was also at an increased risk for HZ (aOR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.48-6.24) compared with IBD control cohort in the postvaccine era. However, the risk of HZ in the postvaccine era was decreased (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76) compared with IBD SARS-CoV2 cohort in the prevaccine era. Conclusions Our study showed that SARS-CoV2 infection is associated with an increased risk of HZ in patients with IBD.

Introduction and Aim: A growing body of evidence suggests a negative impact of obesity on the disease activity of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The primary aim of the study was to evaluate disease outcomes of IBD in patients after bariatric surgery (BS). Methods: Patients with IBD and morbid obesity who underwent BS were compared with patients with IBD and morbid obesity without BS in a retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database. The primary aim was to assess the 2-year risk of a composite of disease-related complications, which included intravenous steroid use or IBD-related surgery. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In all, 482 patients (3.4%) with IBD and morbid obesity underwent BS (mean age 46.9±11.2 y old, mean BMI 42.1±7.72 kg/m2, Crohn’s disease 60%). After propensity-score matching, the BS cohort had a lower risk (aOR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.56) of a composite of IBD-related complications compared with the control cohort. After propensity-score matching, the BS cohort with sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.66) of a composite of IBD-related complications. There was no difference in the risk (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45–1.31) of a composite of IBD-related complications between the BS cohort with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) compared with the control cohort. Conclusion: Sleeve gastrectomy but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with improved disease-specific outcomes in patients with IBD and morbid obesity.

SummaryBackgroundThere is limited real‐world data on comparative effectiveness of different biologic or small molecule agents as second‐line therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior exposure to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi‐institutional database to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib, vedolizumab and ustekinumab in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior exposure to a TNFi. Failure of medical therapy was defined as a composite outcome of intravenous steroids or colectomy within 2 years. One‐to‐one propensity score matching was performed for demographics, disease extent, mean haemoglobin, C‐reactive protein, albumin and calprotectin, prior IBD medications and steroid use between cohorts.ResultsAmong 2141 patients with UC and prior exposure to TNFi, 348 (16.2%), 716 (33.4%) and 1077 (50.3%) were switched to tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. After propensity‐score matching, there was no difference in the composite outcome (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55–1.07) but higher risk of colectomy (aOR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.31–5.50) in the tofacitinib cohort than the vedolizumab cohort. There was no difference in the risk of composite outcome (aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.89–1.86) but higher risk of colectomy (aOR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.24–5.58) in the tofacitinib cohort than the ustekinumab cohort. The vedolizumab cohort had a higher risk of composite outcome (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.29–2.16) than the ustekinumab cohort.ConclusionUstekinumab might be the preferred second‐line therapy over tofacitinib and vedolizumab in patients with UC that were previously exposed to a TNFi.

Background: There is limited data on Vedolizumab utilization in elderly patients. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of Vedolizumab in this subset population. Materials and Methods: Databases including Cochrane Central, Embase, Medline (via Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched in August 2022 to identify studies that assessed Vedolizumab therapy in elderly patients. Pooled proportion and risk ratios (RR) were calculated. Results: Total 11 studies with 3546 IBD patients (1314 elderly and 2232 young) were included in the final analysis. Pooled rate of overall and serious infections in the elderly cohort was 8.45% (95% CI=6.27-11.29; I223%) and 2.59% (95% CI=0.78-8.29; I276%), respectively. However, there was no difference in overall infection rates between elderly and young patients. Pooled rate of endoscopic, clinical, and steroid-free remission for elderly IBD patients was 38.45% (95% CI=20.74-59.56; I293%), 37.95% (95% CI=33.08-43.06; I213%), and 38.8% (95% CI=31.6-46.4; I277%), respectively. Elderly patients had lower steroid-free remission rates [RR 0.85, 95% CI=0.74-0.99; I20%, P=0.03]; however, there was no difference in rates of clinical (RR 0.86, 95% CI=0.72-1.03; I20%, P=0.10) or endoscopic remission (RR 1.06, 95% CI=0.83-1.35; I20%, P=0.63) compared with younger patients. Pooled rate of IBD-related surgery and IBD-related hospitalizations was 9.76% (95% CI=5.81-15.92; I278%) and 10.54% (95% CI=8.37-13.2; I20%), respectively for the elderly cohort. There was no statistical difference in IBD-related surgeries between elderly and young IBD patients, RR 1.20 (95% CI=0.79-1.84; I216%), P=0.4. Conclusions: Vedolizumab is equally safe and effective for clinical and endoscopic remission in elderly and younger populations.

Abstract Aim There are limited data on the impact of 2 vs 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The primary aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine based on number of administered doses in patients with IBD. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database to compare patients with IBD who received 1, 2, or 3 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 to unvaccinated IBD patients (1.1.2020-7.26.2022) to assess the risk of COVID-19 after 1:1 propensity score matching. We also evaluated the impact of vaccine on a composite of severe COVID-19 outcomes including hospitalization, intubation, intensive care unit care, acute kidney injury, or mortality. Results After propensity score matching, vaccinated patients with 2 (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-0.9) and 3 doses (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) were found to have a lower risk of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated patients. Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) compared with unvaccinated patients. There was no difference in the risk of COVID-19 in IBD patients with 2 compared with 3 doses (aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3). However, IBD patients with 2 doses were at an increased risk for hospitalization due to COVID-19 (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02-3.11) compared with those that received 3 doses. Conclusion Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with unvaccinated patients. A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with 2 doses decreases the risk of hospitalization but not breakthrough infection in patients with IBD.

ABSTRACT EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained momentum in recent years, especially with availability of newer needle designs. Given the emerging comparative data on EUS-LB with second-generation needles and percutaneous LB (PC-LB), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two techniques. We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2021 to identify studies comparing outcomes of EUS-LB and PC-LB. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and the results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions and odds ratio (OR) along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies with 748 patients were included in the final analysis. EUS-LB was performed in 276 patients and PC-LB in 472 patients. Across all studies, PC-LB had an overall higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-LB, 98.6% confidence interval (CI: 94.7–99.7) versus 88.3% (49.6–98.3), OR: 1.65, P = 0.04. On assessing data from randomized controlled trials, there was no difference between the two. While pooled diagnostic adequacy and overall adverse events were not significantly different between PC-LB and EUS-LB, the former was superior in terms of the mean number of complete portal tracts (CPT) and total specimen length. PC-LB and EUS-LB produce similar results. PC-LB allows obtaining longer samples and more CPT. Further studies are needed to see if these trends hold up as more providers begin to perform EUS-LB.