Serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can be altered in patients with immune-mediated diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease, and in patients under immunosuppressive treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the serologic response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, to analyze the influence of immunosuppressive drugs on response, and to describe any adverse events in this population. METHODS: this was a prospective study that included adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Baseline characteristics, concomitant treatments and previous COVID-19 symptoms were collected. Patients underwent serological testing before the first and after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: a total of 265 patients were consecutively included. Patients received one of the following vaccines: messenger RNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna; and adenovirus vaccines from AstraZeneca and Janssen. All adverse events were mild, and the most frequent was injection site pain in 141 (86 %) patients. The seroconversion rate according to the treatment that patients were receiving was: 100 % for those without treatment, 92.5 % for patients treated with mesalazine, 90.3 % for those receiving immunomodulators, 88.9 % for patients with biological monotherapy and 92.5 % for patients on combined treatment. The generation of antibodies according to the vaccine administered was: Pfizer 92.9 %, Moderna 93.3 %, AstraZeneca 98.4 %, and Janssen 12.5 %. CONCLUSION: the antibody response after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is high in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, patients treated with immunosuppressive or biologic drugs had a lower response. Adverse events were frequent, but not serious.

Serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective study

Background and aims: response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine can be altered in patients with immune-mediated diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease, and in patients under immunosuppressive treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the serologic response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, to analyze the influence of immunosuppressive drugs on response, and to describe any adverse events in this population. Methods: this was a prospective study that included adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Baseline characteristics, concomitant treatments and previous COVID-19 symptoms were collected. Patients underwent serological testing before the first and after the second vaccine dose. Results: a total of 265 patients were consecutively included. Patients received one of the following vaccines: messenger RNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna; and adenovirus vaccines from AstraZeneca and Janssen. All adverse events were mild, and the most frequent was injection site pain in 141 (86 %) patients. The seroconversion rate according to the treatment that patients were receiving was: 100 % for those without treatment, 92.5 % for patients treated with mesalazine, 90.3 % for those receiving immunomodulators, 88.9 % for patients with biological monotherapy and 92.5 % for patients on combined treatment. The generation of antibodies according to the vaccine administered was: Pfizer 92.9 %, Moderna 93.3 %, AstraZeneca 98.4 %, and Janssen 12.5 %. Conclusion: the antibody response after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is high in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, patients treated with immunosuppressive or biologic drugs had a lower response. Adverse events were frequent, but not serious (AU)

Eosinophilia in Migrant Children: How Should We Proceed?

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic approach to eosinophilia is complex, given the numerous reported etiologies. Intestinal parasites (especially helminths) are a concern in children from high-burden settings. We describe the diagnostic approach and clinical management of eosinophilia in a cohort of migrant children. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study that included children diagnosed with eosinophilia at a reference center for pediatric tropical diseases from 2014 to 2018. All patients were screened according to a unified protocol, including direct microbiologic and serologic tests. RESULTS: A total of 163 children presented with eosinophilia during the study period [median age, 7.7 years (4.1-12.2); 57.1% boys], mostly from Asia (27.6%) and South America (22.1%). Most were internationally adopted children (43.6%) or migrants (26.4%). Only 34.4% of the children were symptomatic, and the main etiology for eosinophilia was helminths (56.4%). After a sequential diagnostic approach, no etiology was found for 40.5% of the patients. The independent risk factors for an unexplained etiology were younger age (≤2 years: odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.3-10.2; P = 0.015), absence of symptoms (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8-12.5; P = 0.001) and mild eosinophilia (<1000/µL: odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 4.5-11.7; P = 0.005). Only 6 children were treated empirically. In those children with an identified cause and in those treated empirically, the eosinophilia resolved in 52% in a median of 7 months (5-9). CONCLUSIONS: Helminths are the main cause of eosinophilia in migrant children and need to be hunted, especially in older children with eosinophil counts >1000 eosinophils/µL.

Is there autochthonous strongyloidiasis in Spanish children?

Strongyloidiasis, a neglected helminthiasis, is more prevalent in tropical/subtropical areas. However, sporadic autochthonous cases have been described around the Mediterranean coast. We performed a retrospective descriptive study in a referral Spanish Center for Pediatric Tropical diseases. All patients below 18 years of age diagnosed with probable strongyloidiasis between January 2014 and December 2019, born in Spain and with no history of travel abroad, were included. Epidemiological, clinical, and follow-up data were recorded, as well as all microbiology results. Five children met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Three males and two females, with a median age of 6.7 years (IQR: 5.8-9.1). All patients had previous medical conditions and used to spend holidays on the Mediterranean coast of Spain. All but one were mildly symptomatic at diagnosis but only four presented peripheral eosinophilia, which was the main reason for referral. First-line treatment was ivermectin in all but one, who was treated with albendazole. Reinfection was suspected in two during follow-up. At 12 months of follow-up 3/5 (60%) children presented negative serology.Conclusion: Although more prevalent in tropical areas, strongyloidiasis should be included among differential diagnosis in children presenting with eosinophilia. Screening for strongyloidiasis should be considered in all children candidate to immunosuppressive therapy. What is Known: • Strongyloidiasis is more prevalent in tropical/subtropical areas. • Strongyloidiasis can be life-threatening in immunosuppressed patients What is New: • Spanish children can be affected by autochthonous strongyloidiasis. • Screening for strongiloidiasis should be performed in all candidates to immunosuppresive therapies, including children.