Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dig Dis ; 40(6): 719-727, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34915480

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first described in 2019, with a significant impact on everyday life since then. In December 2020, the first vaccine against COVID-19 from BioNTech/Pfizer was approved for the first time. However, little is known about the immune response to vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and immunomodulators or biologics. The aim of our study was to investigate antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IBD receiving immunomodulators or biologics compared to healthy controls. METHODS: This was a single-center study with a retrospective observational design. Seventy-two patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease were included. Matching data from 72 healthy employees of our hospital were used as the control group. Data were matched by propensity score to patients with IBD. Blood samples were taken from both groups for antibody response, and both groups received an accompanying questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-five (90.3%) patients of the IBD group reported taking immunomodulatory therapy. The mean antibody level for all IBD patients was 1,257.1 U/mL (standard deviation [SD] 1,109.626) in males and 1,500.1 U/mL (SD 1142.760) in female IBD patients after full vaccination. Compared to the healthy group, reduced antibody response could be detected (IBD group 1,383.76 U/mL SD 1,125.617; control group 1,885.65 U/mL SD 727.572, p < 0.05). In this group, blood samples were taken with an average of 61.9 days after the first vaccination. There was no vaccination failure in the IBD group after 2 vaccinations. After the first vaccination, side effects, including muscle pain, pain at the injection site, and fatigue, were reported more often in IBD patients than in the control group (total symptoms IBD group 58.3%, control group 34.5%, p < 0.007). The opposite occurred after the second vaccination when side effects were higher in the control group (total symptoms IBD group 55.4%, control group 76%, p = 0.077). There was a trend to a reduced immune response in elderly patients. Disease duration and concomitant immunomodulatory therapy (TNF-alpha blockers, interleukin inhibitors, integrin inhibitors, methotrexate, or azathioprine) had no impact on the immune response. However, longer time to last medication given and time passed to vaccination in patients with IBD seems to have a positive impact on antibody levels. CONCLUSION: Overall, we could show a high antibody response to vaccination with COVID-19 in all patients with IBD after 2 vaccinations. Vaccination was well tolerated, and no other adverse events were detected. Concomitant immunomodulatory therapy (TNF-alpha blockers, interleukin inhibitors, integrin inhibitors, methotrexate, or azathioprine) had no impact on seroconversion. Further evaluation of antibody titers over time is mandatory to detect early the need for re-vaccination in these patients.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Doença de Crohn , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Formação de Anticorpos , Azatioprina/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Coortes , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Doença de Crohn/tratamento farmacológico , Fatores Imunológicos , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/induzido quimicamente , Integrinas , Metotrexato/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Centros de Atenção Terciária , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa
2.
United European Gastroenterol J ; 9(9): 1081-1090, 2021 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34655180

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased. METHODS: We considered 4128 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings. RESULTS: A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID-19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID-19 patients.


Assuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Comorbidade , Estado Terminal , Doenças Diverticulares/diagnóstico , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Feminino , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/complicações , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/etiologia , Hospitalização , Humanos , Lactente , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Úlcera Péptica/diagnóstico , Sistema de Registros , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Adulto Jovem
3.
Z Gastroenterol ; 59(12): 1278-1287, 2021 Dec.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34687033

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Practices and hospitals are facing great challenges in coping with the COVID-19-pandemic. So far, data on the impact of the pandemic on gastroenterological facilities are lacking, especially on a temporal course. A database is lacking, especially for the outpatient care sector. University Hospital of Augsburg was commissioned to generate data on this as a part of the collaborative project B-FAST of the Network of University Medicine (NUM). METHODS: Gastroenterological institutions nationwide were surveyed by an online questionnaire. Recruitment was carried out via the German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) and the Professional Association of Gastroenterologists in Private Practice (bng). This manuscript provides an overview of data on the use of protective equipment, pre-interventional testing of patients, staff screening and economic impact over the course of the pandemic. RESULTS: 429 facilities answered the questionnaire. Practices tested their patients pre-interventionally significantly less often than clinics (7.8% vs. 82.6%). In clinics, inpatients (93.1%) were tested significantly more often than outpatients (72.2%). The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) increased significantly during the pandemic. It was shown that over 70% of facilities screened their staff for SARS-CoV-2 without cause. Clinics cancelled elective procedures significantly more often than practices in quarter 4/2020. Procedures and turnover decreased in 2020 compared to the previous year. However, fewer facilities were affected by a loss of revenue than expected in previous studies. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate the variable implementation of pre-interventional SARS-CoV-2 testing in outpatient and inpatient care. The use of adequate PPE and staff screening increased during the pandemic.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Teste para COVID-19 , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Alemanha/epidemiologia , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA