Citations

Abstract Background and study aims Splenic injury (SI) during colonoscopy is an underappreciated adverse event. Our aim was to examine the occurrence and outcomes of patients who developed SI after inpatient colonoscopy using a nationwide dataset. Patients and methods Retrospective, observational study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2012 and 2018. All patients with ICD9/10CM procedural codes for colonoscopy with or without SI were included. The primary outcome was the association between SI and inpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were inpatient morbidity, mortality, resource utilization, splenectomy rates, hospital length of stay and total hospital costs and charges. Comparative analyses were performed between patients with and without SI. Multivariate regression analyses were utilized. Results A total of 2,258,040 of inpatient colonoscopies were included. Of these, 240 had associated SI and 25 patients required splenectomy (10.4 %). The incidence of colonoscopy-associated SI remained relatively stable between 2012 and 2018 (0.033 % versus 0.020 %, respectively). The mean age of patients with and without SI was 63.7 and 64.1 years, respectively. The occurrence of SI was calculated as 10.63 cases per 100,000 inpatient colonoscopies. Patients who had associated SI displayed significantly higher odds of inpatient mortality (aOR: 14.45) and ICU stay (aOR: 10.11) compared to those without SI. Conclusions Splenic injury confers significantly higher odds of inpatient mortality, and resource utilization. The incidence of SI related to colonoscopy remained stable during the study period. Although uncommon, SI should be considered when encountering patients with abdominal pain after colonoscopy.

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of infections, including vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). The aim of this study was to explore the inpatient prevalence of VPD in patients with IBD, as well as inpatient outcomes. Methods: Retrospective study using the 2013-2017 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases. All patients 18 years of age or older with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and 10th Revisions, Clinical Modification (ICD-9/10 CM) codes for IBD were included, as well as patients with VPDs as a principal diagnostic code. The primary outcome was the occurrence and odds of VPD in patients with IBD compared with patients with no IBD. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, morbidity, and economic burden compared with patients with IBD and non–vaccine-preventable infections (VPIs). Multivariate regression yielded adjusted odds ratios. Results: Of 1,622,245 (0.9%) patients with a diagnosis of IBD, 3560 (0.2%) had associated VPDs, while 131,150 patients had non-VPI (8.1%). The most common VPDs were influenza, herpes zoster (HZ), pneumococcal pneumonia, and varicella. Only HZ and varicella had increased odds of occurrence in patients with IBD of all ages. Patients with IBD 65 years of age or older had increased odds of VPD compared with patients under 65 years. Patients with IBD and associated VPD had higher odds of intensive care unit stay, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and multiorgan failure compared with patients with IBD and non-VPI. Conclusions: VPDs represent a clinically relevant cause of infectious disease-related hospital admissions in patients with IBD. Patients with IBD are at increased risk for hospitalization due to HZ and varicella. Those hospitalized for VPD have higher morbidity compared with patients with IBD and non-VPI. These findings echo the importance of instituting optimal immunization schedules in patients with IBD, particularly in patients 65 years or older.

Abstract Background Active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) at conception is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Published literature suggests that almost a quarter of women with IBD do not use any form of contraception putting them at risk of unplanned pregnancy. Recent guidelines emphasise the importance of antenatal care in IBD patients, but contraception counselling and risk assessment are not addressed. Our aim was to explore the contraceptive knowledge, attitudes and preferences of women with IBD. Methods A 34-item questionnaire was prospectively administered to 245 consecutive female IBD patients aged 18–45 attending gastroenterology clinics. Disease control was measured using the validated IBD Control questionnaire, and contraceptive preferences assessed by the Contraceptive Features Survey. Results Of the 245 participants (see table 1), mean disease duration was 6.5 years, median IBD control score was 16.9 (range 0- 26), and 152 (62%) respondents had previously been pregnant. Almost three quarters of respondents (n=176) reported currently using contraception, and 41 (17%) were using highly effective contraceptives. The most commonly used contraceptives were oral birth control pills (27%) and barrier methods (18%). Participants who identified as Caucasian (74%) were more likely than those who identified as Asian (37%) to use contraception (p=0.0009). Patients who did not plan to conceive in the future were more likely to use contraception (p=0.0365). However, of the 58% (n=143) who had either no plans to conceive in the future or were unsure, 23% were not using any form of contraception, and 83% were not using a highly effective contraceptive. Current biologic therapy was significantly associated with highly effective contraceptive use (p=0.0275). Contraceptive features most important to women were effectiveness (78%), ease of use (76%), few or no side effects (68%) and not detracting from sexual enjoyment (65%). Only 25% patients (n=61) recalled discussing reproductive issues with their IBD clinician, however, 86% stated they would feel comfortable having this discussion. Women wished to receive family planning counselling from their IBD nurse (81%), General practitioner (77%), IBD doctor (68%), and gynaecologist (47%). Conclusion A quarter of patients in our cohort were not using any contraception and the majority were not using a highly effective form potentially increasing their risk of unplanned or mistimed pregnancy. Participants desired a contraceptive that was effective, easy to use and with minimal side effects. Our findings reflect the need for further studies to improve informed decision making with contraceptive counselling, to improve the overall quality of care for women with IBD.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ). HZ is caused by reactivation of the varicella zoster virus (VZV) and is prevented by strong VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether patients with IBD had lower or equivalent protection compared with healthy controls (HCs) at age 50 years and older. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study at a single academic center and evaluated cellular and humoral immunity to VZV in patients with IBD at age 35–49 years vs HCs aged 50–59 years. All patients with IBD were on stable medication regimens for at least 3 months. VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity was measured via ELISPOT, and humoral immunity was measured via a quantitative VZV antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay assay. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients with IBD and 12 HCs were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference in ELISPOT counts between patients with IBD and HCs ( P = 0.54). In addition, there was also no significant difference between ELISPOT counts in immunosuppressed patients with IBD (N = 45) and HCs ( P = 0.32). We also found no correlations between ELISPOT counts and age (Spearman rho 0.014; P = 0.90). Patients with IBD had similar IgG VZV antibody levels (median 19 mIU/mL; range 0.5–218) compared with HCs (median 23.5 mIU/mL (range 4–34); P = 0.54). DISCUSSION: Young patients with IBD have equivalent cellular and humoral immunity to VZV as healthy older adults in whom HZ immunization is recommended.

INTRODUCTION: Although an additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine dose for immunocompromised persons has been recommended in some countries, further data to guide vaccination strategies for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are urgently needed. We sought to identify factors affecting initial humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines among patients with IBD. METHODS: In this prospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 immunized patients with IBD, we evaluated associations between participant age, sex, vaccine type, medication use, and the presence of a detectable antireceptor binding domain antibody and quantitative antibody level. RESULTS: In total, 1,909 participants were included (1,123, 692, and 94 received BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S, respectively) of whom 96% achieved a positive antibody response. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with lack of antibody response were older age ( P = 0.043), BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273 (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–3.9), and combination therapy with anti-TNF and 6MP, azathioprine, or methotrexate (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.4–7.3). The use of 5-aminosalicylate or sulfasalazine (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8) and ustekinumab (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05–0.8) was associated with decreased odds of lacking antibody response. DISCUSSION: Most patients with IBD mount an initial response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, older patients and those treated with anti-TNF and immunomodulator have blunted responses and may benefit the most from an additional vaccine dose. Patients treated with other classes of immunosuppressive medications have more robust initial immune responses to vaccination. These data should inform key decisions about patient selection for additional coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine doses in patients with IBD.

SummaryBackgroundAccurate estimates for the risk of COVID‐19 in IBD, and an understanding of the impact of COVID‐19 on IBD course and the risk of incident post‐infectious IBD are needed.AimsTo estimate the risk of COVID‐19 in IBD and study its impact on IBD course and the risk of incident post‐infectious IBD.MethodsA retrospective propensity score matched cohort study utilising multi‐institutional research network TriNetX. COVID‐19 patients with and without IBD were identified to quantify the risk of COVID‐19 in patients with IBD, COVID‐19 outcomes in patients with IBD and the impact of COVID‐19 on IBD disease course. The risk of incident post‐infectious IBD in COVID‐19 patients was compared to the population not infected with COVID‐19 during a similar time period.ResultsIncidence rate ratio for COVID‐19 was lower in IBD patients compared to the non‐IBD population (0.79, 95% CI: 0.72‐0.86). COVID‐19‐infected patients with IBD were at increased risk for requiring hospitalisation compared to non‐IBD population (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02‐1.34) with no differences in need for mechanical ventilation or mortality. Patients with IBD on steroids were at an increased risk for critical care need (RR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.29‐3.82). Up to 7% of patients with IBD infected with COVID‐19 suffered an IBD flare 3‐months post‐infection. Risk for incident IBD post‐COVID was lower than that seen in the non‐COVID population (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.54‐0.65).ConclusionWe observed no increase in risk for COVID‐19 amongst patients with IBD or risk for de novo IBD after COVID‐19 infection. We confirmed prior observations regarding the impact of steroid use on COVID‐19 severity in patients with IBD.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination is recommended for all individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including those on immunosuppressive therapies; however, little is known about vaccine safety and efficacy in these patients or the impact of vaccination on IBD disease course. Methods We evaluated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine–related adverse events (AEs) and the effect of vaccination on IBD disease course among participants in the PREVENT-COVID (Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID) study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Localized and systemic reactions were assessed via questionnaire. Disease flare was defined by worsening IBD symptoms and change in IBD medications. Outcomes were stratified by vaccine type and IBD medication classes. Results A total of 3316 individuals with IBD received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine. Injection site tenderness (68%) and fatigue (46% dose 1, 68% dose 2) were the most commonly reported localized and systemic AEs after vaccination. Severe localized and systemic vaccine-related AEs were rare. The mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with significantly greater severe AEs at dose 2 (localized 4% vs 2%, systemic 15% vs 10%; P < .001 for both). Prior COVID-19 infection, female sex, and vaccine type were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 1, while age <50 years, female sex, vaccine type, and antitumor necrosis factor and vedolizumab use were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 2. Overall rates (2%) of IBD flare were low following vaccination. Conclusions Our findings provide reassurance that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is safe and well tolerated among individuals with IBD, which may help to combat vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine confidence.

Abstract Background Early endoscopic evaluation of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) enables assessment of disease activity and accurate diagnosis based on exclusion of other similarly presenting conditions including infections. Early endoscopy is also associated with improved outcomes of patients with active UC. The aim of this study was determining temporal trends in endoscopy in patients with UC over a 7-year period from 2012 to 2018. Methods Retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample 2012–2018. Patients admitted with ICD-9–10 principal codes for UC were included. Early endoscopy using flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) or colonoscopy was defined as performed within 48 hours of admission. The primary outcome was trends in endoscopy timing. Secondary outcomes were inpatient morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization charges/costs comparing patients undergoing early vs nonearly endoscopy using multivariable regression. Results Of 222 460 patients hospitalized with UC, 5900 (2.7%) underwent FS and 43 345 (19.5%) underwent colonoscopy. The rate of endoscopy increased from 3.9% (2.3% early) to 39.3% (23.3% early) from 2012 to 2018 (P < .01). Early endoscopy was associated with statistically significant decreased mortality, shock, multiorgan failure, and intensive care unit odds, as well as decreased resource utilization and LOS. Conclusions In patients hospitalized with UC, early endoscopy rates were low but performed more frequently from 2012 to 2018. This may reflect increasing awareness of improved outcomes from earlier disease staging and/or diagnosis. Early endoscopy was associated with decreased resource utilization and hospitalization-related outcomes, highlighting the importance of early endoscopy in patients admitted with UC.

Abstract Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have low vaccination rates for vaccine-preventable diseases. Fear of adverse reactions (AEs) appear to negatively affect vaccination efforts. We aimed to systemically review the risks for AEs following immunization for patients with IBD. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase until April 15, 2020, for studies evaluating the safety of vaccinations among patients with IBD. The primary outcome was the incidence of systemic and local AEs among vaccinated patients. Secondary outcome was the rate of IBD flare following immunization. We utilized a random effects meta-analysis of proportions using the DerSimonian-Laird approach to estimate the safety of immunizations. Results A total of 13 studies with 2116 patients was included in our analysis after fulfilling our inclusion criteria. Seven studies examined the influenza vaccine, 4 the pneumococcal vaccine, 1 the recombinant zoster vaccine, and 1 the hepatitis B vaccine. Follow-up of patients was up to 6 months. The majority of AEs were local, with a pooled incidence of 24% (95% CI, 9%-42%) for all vaccines. Systemic AEs were mostly mild, without resulting in hospitalizations or deaths, with a pooled incidence of 16% (95% CI, 6%-29%) for all vaccines. Flare of inflammatory bowel disease after vaccination found with a pooled incidence of 2% (95% CI, 1%-4%) and we include in the analysis data from all immunizations examined. Discussion Our study demonstrated that AEs after vaccination are mainly local or mildly systemic and do not differ significantly from the expected AE after recommended immunizations for the general population. Thus, gastroenterologists should reinforce that vaccines are safe in patients with IBD.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of isolated small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD) can be challenging. Symptoms are non-specific and both imaging and capsule endoscopy (CE) may be misleading as several diseases may mimic CD. Double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) allows a more extensive endoscopic and histologic evaluation of the small bowel. Our aim was to describe the diagnostic utility and impact of DBE on management of patients with known CD and in patients with suspected/rule-out CD. METHODS: Retrospective review of our institution’s DBE database from February 2009 to May 2013. Adult patients referred for DBE for further evaluation of known or suspected CD (due to symptoms, abnormal imaging and/or CE) were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, imaging and CE results, prior DBE, indication for DBE, DBE findings, DBE adverse events, pathology findings, final diagnosis, treatment prior and post DBE and follow-up DBE were abstracted from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were included, 61 (56%) females, mean age 52 years (range 20-83). Indications for DBE included: disease activity assessment/therapeutic in 10 patients with established diagnosis of CD and for diagnostic purposes in 98 patients with suspected CD (31 patients due to abnormal imaging, 29 due to abnormal CE and 26 due to both abnormal imaging and CE). Upper, lower, bidirectional upper and lower, and stomal DBE were performed in 21, 24, 62 and 1 patients, respectively. DBE revealed active disease in 8/10 patients with known CD with one patient undergoing dilation of a stricture. Changes in management were recommended for all patients with active disease – start thiopurine (2), optimize thiopurine dose (1), start biologics (3) change biologics (1), systemic steroids (1) and budesonide (1). The patient who underwent stricture dilation ultimately required surgery. A definitive diagnosis of CD (both endoscopic and histologic) was reached in only 39/98 (40%) patients who were referred for suspected CD. Changes in management were recommended in 32/39 (82%) patients. Interestingly, 24/98 patients had been diagnosed with CD at outside institutions and were recommended to initiate therapy for CD. Of these, CD was confirmed in only 15/24 (63%) patients. Adverse events included perforation in 1 patient (1%) who required surgical management and mouth swelling/abrasion in 3 patients (3%). Follow-up DBE to re-assess disease activity was performed in 10/49 (20%) patients with definitive diagnosis of CD, average time between procedures 4.5 years (range 0.7-11.6). One patient with CD was diagnosed with lymphoma 2.4 years after initial DBE. Changes in management were recommended in 6 patients: de-escalation of therapy (3, two underwent surgery), start thiopurine and/or biologic (2) and switch biologics (1). No complications were seen at follow-up DBE. CONCLUSION: DBE is a useful technique to confirm a diagnosis in patients who have suspected CD and can help establish a diagnosis of several diseases that may mimic CD on CT scan or CE. Additionally, DBE in patients with established diagnosis of small bowel CD is an effective tool to assess disease activity and guide therapy. Serious complications are infrequent.