Recent advances in clinical practice: management of inflammatory bowel disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised considerable concerns that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly those treated with immunosuppressive therapies, may have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition, develop worse outcomes following COVID-19, and have suboptimal vaccine response compared with the general population. In this review, we summarise data on the risk of COVID-19 and associated outcomes, and latest guidance on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IBD. Emerging evidence suggests that commonly used medications for IBD, such as corticosteroids but not biologicals, were associated with adverse outcomes to COVID-19. There has been no increased risk of de novo, or delayed, IBD diagnoses, however, an overall decrease in endoscopy procedures has led to a rise in the number of missed endoscopic-detected cancers during the pandemic. The impact of IBD medication on vaccine response has been a research priority recently. Data suggest that patients with IBD treated with antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) medications had attenuated humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and more rapid antibody decay, compared with non-anti-TNF-treated patients. Reassuringly, rates of breakthrough infections and hospitalisations in all patients who received vaccines, irrespective of IBD treatment, remained low. International guidelines recommend that all patients with IBD treated with immunosuppressive therapies should receive, at any point during their treatment cycle, three primary doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines with a further booster dose as soon as possible. Future research should focus on our understanding of the rate of antibody decay in biological-treated patients, which patients require additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the long-term risks of COVID-19 on IBD disease course and activity, and the potential risk of long COVID-19 in patients with IBD.

Risks of post-colonoscopic polypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: There were limited data on the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We aimed to evaluate the PPB and thromboembolic risks among DOAC and warfarin users in a population-based cohort. METHODS: We performed a territory-wide retrospective cohort study involving patients in Hong Kong from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received an oral anticoagulant and had undergone colonoscopy with polypectomy were identified. Propensity-score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were developed for the warfarin-DOAC and between-DOAC comparisons. The primary outcome was clinically significant delayed PPB, defined as repeat colonoscopy requiring haemostasis within 30 days. The secondary outcomes were 30-day blood transfusion requirement and new thromboembolic event. RESULTS: Apixaban was associated with lower PPB risk than warfarin (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.63, p<0.001). Dabigatran (aHR 2.23, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.77, adjusted p (ap)=0.035) and rivaroxaban (aHR 2.72, 95% CI 1.35 to 5.48, ap=0.002) were associated with higher PPB risk than apixaban. In subgroup analysis, apixaban was associated with lower PPB risk in patients aged ≥70 years and patients with right-sided colonic polyps.For thromboembolic events, apixaban was associated with lower risk than warfarin (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45, p<0.001). Dabigatran (aHR 2.60, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.41, ap=0.033) and rivaroxaban (aHR 2.96, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.37, ap =0.013) were associated with higher thromboembolic risk than apixaban. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of PPB and thromboembolism than warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, particularly in older patients with right-sided polyps.

Thromboembolic Risks with Concurrent Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Antiseizure Medications: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drug-drug interactions between direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and antiseizure medications via the cytochrome P450 (CYP) or the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) systems may lead to under-anticoagulation. The clinical relevance of these interactions is unclear. We aimed to elucidate the risk of thromboembolism with concurrent DOAC and CYP/P-gp modulating antiseizure medications. METHODS: In this propensity score-weighted population-based retrospective cohort study, we used competing risk regression analyses to determine the risks of ischemic stroke, venous thromboembolism, and death in DOAC recipients taking CYP/P-gp-modulating antiseizure medications (phenytoin, valproate, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, or phenobarbital) versus those taking CYP/P-gp-neutral antiseizure medications (pregabalin, gabapentin, or clobazam). We also performed secondary analyses for the epilepsy and atrial fibrillation subgroups. RESULTS: Among DOAC users, CYP/P-gp-modulating antiseizure medications were collectively associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.57, p = 0.017). In addition, phenytoin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.68, p = 0.011) and valproate (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.74, p = 0.006) were associated with increased mortality. In the epilepsy subgroup, the risk of ischemic stroke and venous thromboembolism did not differ between CYP/P-gp-modulating and CYP/P-gp-neutral antiseizure medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although CYP/P-gp-modulating antiseizure medications were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke when paired with DOAC in the primary analysis, such a phenomenon was not found among patients with epilepsy who took phenytoin, valproate, or levetiracetam with DOAC. Therefore, these antiseizure medication options among patients with epilepsy with concurrent DOAC should not be restricted solely based on their potential drug-drug interactions. Yet, the increased mortality during concurrent use of DOAC with phenytoin or valproate might call for caution.