Management of patients with Intestinal Bowel Disease and COVID-19: A review of current evidence and future perspectives.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for countries and health professionals worldwide. Viral entry by ACE-2 receptor and an excessive activation of the immune system are key to understand both incidence and severity of disease. Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) represents a special condition associated with an inordinate response of the immune system to external agents. IBD treatments have been associated to an increased risk of bacterial and viral infections. This has raised the question of possible higher incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in IBD patients. Several papers have been published during this year of pandemic to answer that question. Moreover, COVID-19 vaccination offers great promise in controlling infection in patients with IBD. Based on current evidence, patients with IBD do not have a higher incidence of COVID-19 than the general population, and they do not have worse disease evolution. Advanced age and presence of a greater number of comorbidities have been associated with worse outcomes, similar to the general population. Corticosteroids are associated to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, higher hospitalization rate and higher risk of severe COVID-19. 5-ASA/Sulfasalazine and Thiopurines have a possible increased risk of severe COVID-19, although studies are lacking. On the other hand, Anti-TNF may have a possible protective effect. It is recommended to maintain the treatment. Anti-IL-12/23, anti-integrins and tofacitinib have results comparable to anti-TNF. Based on the efficacy, expert recommendations, and the absence of other evidence, it is recommended that patients with IBD be vaccinated.

The role of multimodal treatment in Crohn's disease patients with perianal fistula: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment paradigms for Crohn's disease with perianal fistulae (CD-pAF) are evolving. AIMS: To study the impact of multimodality treatment in CD-pAF on recurrence rates and the need for re-interventions and to identify predictive factors for these outcomes. METHODS: This was a multinational multicentre retrospective cohort study. Multimodality approach was defined as using a combination of medical treatments (anti-TNFs ± immunomodulators ± antibiotics) along with surgical approach (examination under anaesthesia (EUA) ± seton drainage) at diagnosis of CD-pAF. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed for variables indicative of the need for reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were included. 65% of patients received multimodality approach. Multimodality treatment resulted in complete fistula healing in 52% of patients. Re-intervention was needed in 27% of patients with simple and in 40.3% of those with complex fistula. On multivariable analysis multimodality treatment (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.57, P = 0.001), seton removal (OR: 0.090, 95% CI: 0.027-0.30, P = 0.0001, therapy with infliximab (OR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.64, P = 0.007), and therapy with adalimumab (OR: 0.12, "95% CI: 0.026-0.56, P = 0.007) were predictive of avoiding repeat surgery. Proctitis (OR: 3.76, 95% CI: 1.09-12.96, P = 0.03) was predictive of the need for radical surgery (proctectomy, diverting stoma) while multimodality treatment reduced the need for radical surgery (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05-0.81, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Multimodality treatment, anti-TNFs use, and removal of setons after multimodality treatment can result in improved outcomes in CD patients with perianal fistulae and reduce the need for repeat surgery and radical surgery.

Factors related with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival depends mostly on stage at the time of diagnosis. However, symptom duration at diagnosis or treatment have also been considered as predictors of stage and survival. This study was designed to: 1) establish the distinct time-symptom duration intervals; 2) identify factors associated with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of all incident cases of symptomatic CRC during 2006-2009 (795 incident cases) in 5 Spanish regions. Data were obtained from patients' interviews and reviews of primary care and hospital clinical records. MEASUREMENTS: CRC symptoms, symptom perception, trust in the general practitioner (GP), primary care and hospital examinations/visits before diagnosis, type of referral and tumor characteristics at diagnosis. Symptom Diagnosis Interval (SDI) was calculated as time from first CRC symptoms to date of diagnosis. Symptom Treatment Interval (STI) was defined as time from first CRC symptoms until start of treatment. Nonparametric tests were used to compare SDI and STI according to different variables. RESULTS: Symptom to diagnosis interval for CRC was 128 days and symptom treatment interval was 155. No statistically significant differences were observed between colon and rectum cancers. Women experienced longer intervals than men. Symptom presentation such as vomiting or abdominal pain and the presence of obstruction led to shorter diagnostic or treatment intervals. Time elapsed was also shorter in those patients that perceived their first symptom/s as serious, disclosed it to their acquaintances, contacted emergencies services or had trust in their GPs. Primary care and hospital doctor examinations and investigations appeared to be related to time elapsed to diagnosis or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that gender, symptom perception and help-seeking behaviour are the main patient factors related to interval duration. Health service performance also has a very important role in symptom to diagnosis and treatment interval. If time to diagnosis is to be reduced, interventions and guidelines must be developed to ensure appropriate examination and diagnosis during both primary and hospital care.