Serological response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. / Respuesta serológica a las vacunas frente a SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.

OBJECTIVE: To study the serological response (SR) and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and its relation with IBD treatment and type of vaccine. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study in patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 without known previous infection. SR was analyzed by the determination of IgG antibodies against the S1 subunit. Safety was studied using a questionnaire to identify adverse effects (AE). RESULTS: 280 patients with IBD were included. Type of vaccines: Comirnaty® 68.8%; Spikevax® 10.8%, Vaxzevria® 18.3%, Ad26.COV2-S® 2.2%. 51.3% had AE, being 100% mild. 65% developed IgG antibodies after vaccination. The SR was higher for vaccines with mRNA technology (100% Spikevax®, 68.5% Comirnaty®) compared to those based on adenovirus vector (38.0% Vaxzevria®, 33.3% Ad26.COV2-S®) (P<.001). In the multivariate analysis, SR was related to age (<60 years; OR: 3.8, 95% CI 1.9-7.0; P<.001). The SR in patients with aminosalicylates was 65.4%, 61.4% with immunosuppressants, 65.8% with anti-TNF, and 68.7% with non-anti-TNF biologicals (P=.9). CONCLUSIONS: One third of patients with IBD did not develop antibodies with the initial vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The SR to vaccines based on mRNA technology was higher, and it was related to age (higher in younger patients). Immunosuppressants and biologicals did not decrease SR. More than half of the patients presented AD, being mild in all cases.

Optimization of Diabetic Macular Edema Management in the Real World: A Model of Excellence in Retina Units: The EMUREX Initiative.

PURPOSE: To define and develop a model of excellence for the clinical management of diabetic macular edema (DME) patients in a real-world setting. METHODS: A multidisciplinary joint commission (5 ophthalmologists, 1 nurse, and 1 pharmaceutic) established a series of preliminary recommendations based on clinical guidelines and DME activity results from 8 Pilot Hospitals (PH). These were validated by members of each PH and a group of DME patients in discussion workshops. Thus, the validated guideline (VG) took into consideration different aspects, namely, main core points (ranging 0-100), criteria, and indicators. Finally, each PH own setting was compared to the VG in order to settle down a starting point to clinical excellence. RESULTS: Mean PH score was 51.5 (range 30-65). As compared to their maximum, main points that showed best scores were Clinical Guidelines and Protocols (78%) and Portfolio of Services (73%). Topics reaching close to 50% scoring included Resources (55%), Innovation (54%), Care Process (53%), Organization (52%), and Leadership (50%). Lowest scores were observed in the Strategic Alliances (46%) and Staff (37%) points. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of each PH by the VG delivered a global vision of the starting situation, especially focused in the identification of the different improvement areas. In order to further extend this model into the Public Health System, the effect of implementing it in different hospitals should be assessed to analyze its impact on daily clinical practice and health economics.