ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vedolizumab (VDZ) can be used to treat refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). We assessed whether there are differences in treating UC vs CD with VDZ. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Mayo score in UC and the Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) in CD scored the clinical activity. Achievement and maintenance of clinical remission during the follow-up, and safety were the primary endpoints. RESULTS: 729 patients (475 with UC and 254 with CD), median follow-up of 18 (IQR 6-36) months, were enrolled. Clinical remission at the 6th month of treatment was achieved in 488 (66.9%) patients (74.4% in CD vs 62.9% in UC, p<0.002) while, during the follow-up, no difference was found (81.5% in the UC group and 81.5% pts in the CD group; p=0.537). The clinical remission at the 6th month of treatment (p=0.001) and being naïve to biologics (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with prolonged clinical remission. The clinical response was significantly higher in UC (90.1%) vs CD (84.3%) (p=0.023), and surgery occurred more frequently in CD (1.9% in UC vs 5.1% in CD, p=0.016). CONCLUSION: We found differences when using VDZ in UC vs CD in real life. These parameters can help the physician predict this drug's longterm efficacy.
Subject(s)
Colitis, Ulcerative , Crohn Disease , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Humans , Crohn Disease/drug therapy , Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Remission Induction , Italy , Gastrointestinal Agents/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapyABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 is the etiological agent of the current pandemic worldwide and its associated disease COVID-19. In this review, we have analyzed SARS-CoV-2 characteristics and those ones of other well-known RNA viruses viz. HIV, HCV and Influenza viruses, collecting their historical data, clinical manifestations and pathogenetic mechanisms. The aim of the work is obtaining useful insights and lessons for a better understanding of SARS-CoV-2. These pathogens present a distinct mode of transmission, as SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza viruses are airborne, whereas HIV and HCV are bloodborne. However, these viruses exhibit some potential similar clinical manifestations and pathogenetic mechanisms and their understanding may contribute to establishing preventive measures and new therapies against SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/history , Pandemics/history , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Climate , Disease Reservoirs/virology , Genome, Viral , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Mutation , RNA Viruses/pathogenicity , RNA Viruses/physiology , Reinfection/epidemiology , Reinfection/history , Reinfection/transmission , Reinfection/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/history , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , Virus Replication , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), used to reduce gastric acid secretion, represent one of the most widely used pharmaceutical classes in the world. Their consumption as a risk factor for the evolution of severe forms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been investigated as well as the mortality of these patients. These risks also appear to be linked to the duration and the dosage. On the other hand, several studies have emerged with regard to the protective or therapeutic effects of these drugs. More and more evidence underlines the immunomodulatory and anti-fibrotic role of PPIs. In addition, their ability to alkalize the contents of endosomes and lysosomes serves as an obstacle to the entry of the virus into the host cells. AIM: To identify studies on the relationship between the intake of PPIs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection, with the main objective of evaluating the outcomes related to severity and mortality. METHODS: A literature review was performed in November 2020. The MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases were searched for all relevant articles published in English on this topic. The search terms were identified by means of controlled vocabularies, such as the National Library of Medicine's MESH (Medical Subject Headings) and keywords. The MESH terms and keywords used were as follows: "COVID-19", "proton pump inhibitors", "PPIs", "SARS-CoV-2", "outcomes", "severity" and "mortality". The inclusion criteria regarding the studies considered in our analysis were: meta-analysis, case-control, hospital-based case-control, population-based case-control, retrospective studies, online survey, as well as cohort-studies, while articles not published as full reports, such as conference abstracts, case reports and editorials were excluded. We tried to summarize and pool all the data if available. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies were found that described the use of PPIs, of which only 5 clearly reported the severity and mortality data in SARS-CoV-2 patients. Our pooled incidence analysis of severe events did not differ between patients with and without PPIs (odds ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-4.35) (P = 0.314), or for mortality (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-5.03) (P = 0.286). CONCLUSION: Detailed and larger case studies are needed to accurately understand the role of PPIs in this viral infection.