Immunogenicity of Hepatitis B Vaccination in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis on Infliximab Is Attenuated Compared to Those on 5-Aminosalicylic Acid Therapies: A Prospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection has been associated with chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at a higher risk of HBV infection reactivation, especially those on biologic therapies. This study intends to compare the effectiveness of the HBV vaccine in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) on infliximab (IFX) compared to those on 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA). METHODS: Patients with UC aged >18 years old were prospectively enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into two groups: patients treated with 5-ASA (control group) and patients treated with IFX (study group). HBV vaccination was administered (20 mcg) following the standard regimen, and Hepatitis B serum antibody (HbsAb) titers were assessed three months after the final dose. The response to HBV vaccines was categorized as an 'adequate' immune response (≥10 IU/L) and 'effective' immune response (≥100 IU/L). RESULTS: In our final analysis of 118 patients with UC, 54.2% were male and 52.5% had extensive colitis. HBsAb titer levels were significantly higher in the 5-ASA group (126.7 ± 37.5) compared to the IFX group (55.5 ± 29.4). Stratifying HBsAb levels into two categories (≥10-99 IU/L and ≥100 IU/L) revealed a significantly greater proportion of subjects in the 5-ASA group with levels ≥100 IU/L compared to the IFX group (76.7% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patients with UC receiving 5-ASA were 23.94 times more likely to exhibit HBsAb levels ≥ 100 compared to those treated with IFX (OR = 23.94, 95% CI 8.89-64.49). CONCLUSION: The immune response to hepatitis B vaccination in patients with ulcerative colitis treated with IFX is attenuated compared to those treated with 5-ASA. Therefore, emphasizing the importance of HBV vaccination for patients with IBD before starting anti-TNF therapy, especially IFX, and advocating for screening is imperative in high-risk countries. Determining what levels of HBsAb provide protection and what happens to the levels over time after a booster dose are important clinical questions to be answered by follow-up studies.

Histological Disease Activity as Predictor of Clinical Relapse, Hospitalization, and Surgery in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of histological remission on short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not well established. We assessed risk of clinical relapse, hospitalization, and need for surgery in patients achieving histological remission in comparison with active histological disease. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and conference abstracts from inception to November 2022. Our main outcome was the rate of clinical relapse in patients with IBD who reached histological remission vs patients with active histological disease. Secondary outcomes were clinical complications of IBD such as hospitalization and need for surgery. The endpoints were investigated at 2 time points, 6 to 12 months (short term) and >12 months (long term). RESULTS: Short-term outcome analysis showed that the risk of clinical relapse was significantly higher in ulcerative colitis patients with active histological disease in comparison with patients at histological remission (risk ratio [RR], 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-3.44; P < .01). The risk of hospitalization in ulcerative colitis patients was not significant among the 2 groups (RR, 4.22; 95% CI, 0.91-19.62; P = .07). Long-term outcome analysis demonstrated that the risk of clinical relapse (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.55-2.76; P < .01), need for surgery (RR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.53-6.45; P < .01), and hospitalization (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.59-4.00; P < .01) was significantly higher in patients with active histological disease. CONCLUSIONS: Histological remission in IBD represents an important therapeutic goal that is not yet routinely pursued in clinical practice. In our study, patients who achieved histological remission have more favorable outcomes than those with active histological disease in ulcerative colitis.

Effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab as second biologic agent in achieving target outcomes in tumor necrosis factor antagonists experienced patients with inflammatory bowel disease (enroll-ex study).

Background: About a third of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. In our study, we evaluated the effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in achieving clinical and endoscopic outcomes in anti-TNF-experienced patients with IBD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Electronic medical records of patients with moderate to severe IBD, who were previously received anti-TNF therapies, were reviewed and evaluated retrospectively in a gastroenterology center. Outcomes of patients treated with ustekinumab or vedolizumab after failing one anti-TNF agent were evaluated. The primary outcomes were the percentage of hospitalization, surgery, mucosal healing and steroid-free remission. Mucosal healing was defined as a Mayo endoscopic score of 0 or 1 in ulcerative colitis (UC) and an SES-CD score of less than 3 in Crohn's disease (CD). Outcomes were quantified using descriptive analysis. Results: A total of 207 (130 CD: 77 UC) patients with IBD who had previously received one anti-TNF agent were included in the study. Of the total cohort, 62 (30.0%) patients were receiving vedolizumab, and 145 (70.0%) patients were on ustekinumab. 101 (77.6%) patients with CD who failed one anti-TNF therapy were on ustekinumab. Of these patients, 26 (19.7%) patients were hospitalized, and 12 (11.9%) patients had IBD-related surgery. 16 (16.1%) patients had at least one corticosteroid course. 60 (59.0%) patients with CD on ustekinumab achieved mucosal healing. 29 (22.3%) patients with CD who failed one anti-TNF therapy were receiving vedolizumab. Of those, 7 (25%) patients were hospitalized, and 11 (37.9%) patients had IBD-related surgery. 15 (51.0%) patients achieved mucosal healing. 44 (57.1%) patients with UC who failed one anti-TNF therapy were on ustekinumab. Of these 6 (14.1%) patients were hospitalized, 3 (7.0%) patients had IBD-related surgery and 13 (30%) patients had at least 1 corticosteroid course. 25 (57.0%) patients achieved mucosal healing. 33 (42.8%) patients with UC who failed one anti-TNF therapy were receiving vedolizumab. Of those, 6 (18.6%) patients were hospitalized, and 16 (49.6%) patients had at least 1 corticosteroid course. 17 (53.2%) patients achieved mucosal healing. Conclusion: Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were both effective in achieving clinical outcomes in patients with IBD after failing an anti-TNF agent. However, patients receiving ustekinumab had numerically higher percentages of reaching target outcomes than patients receiving vedolizumab. A prospective head-to-head trial is warranted to confirm these findings.

Impact of biologic therapies and small molecules on the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to estimate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with biologic therapies and small molecules. METHODS: Databases were searched up to July 2022 to identify eligible studies that assessed the risk of MACEs in patients (age≥18 years) with IBD treated with biologic therapies and small molecules. Primary outcome was the rate of MACEs observed in patients receiving biologic or small molecules therapies during induction and maintenance phases of RCTs. RESULTS: In total 64 studies were included in the analysis. 22 RCTs involving 12,196 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) were included and 32 RCTs involving 22,007 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). In patients with CD, risk of MACE was not higher than placebo during induction or maintenance phases, infliximab (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.07-6.14) and ustekinumab (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03-8.04). In patients with UC, risk of MACE was not higher than placebo, tofacitinib (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.15-11.21) and upadcitinib (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03-7.97) during induction or maintenance. CONCLUSION: The use of biologic therapies and small molecules among adult patients with IBD had no significant impact on the risk of MACEs during induction and maintenance period of RCTs. Real world data is warranted to assess long-term risks.

Biologic and new small molecule therapies have been shown to be effective in treating patients with moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), such as heart attack or heart failure, due to taking these medications in patients with IBD is not well established. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the risk of MACE in patients with IBD on biologic or small molecule therapies during induction and maintenance phases of randomized controlled trials. [Figure: see text].

Comparative Efficacy of Biologic Therapies for Inducing Response and Remission in Fistulizing Crohn's Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The medical treatment of fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD) remains a challenge to clinicians. Over the last 20 years, biologic therapies have been the mainstay of medical treatment of fistulizing CD. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of biologic therapies in inducing response and remission in fistulizing CD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2021. Inclusion criteria were any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of biologic therapies against an active comparator or placebo for induction of response or remission in adults with fistulizing CD. The proportion of patients with fistula response or remission, as defined by each clinical trial, was our primary study outcome. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was used to measure treatment effects and results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: In our analysis, 10 studies were included, and all were RCTs. Infliximab was superior to adalimumab in inducing response (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.99) but not in inducing remission (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.04-2.27). Tumor necrosis factor antagonists were superior to placebo in the induction of response (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.750) and remission (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58). Infliximab was superior to placebo in inducing response (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75) and remission (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.87). Ustekinumab was superior to placebo in inducing response (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.860) but not in inducing remission (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.13-1.93). When comparing biologic therapies against each other, there was no statistical difference in inducing remission. Vedolizumab was not superior to placebo in inducing remission (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.04-2.29). Certolizumab was not superior to placebo in inducing response (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.40-1.55) or remission (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.40-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor necrosis factor antagonists are effective in inducing response and remission in fistulizing CD. Infliximab was superior to adalimumab for inducing response but not for inducing remission. Ustekinumab is effective in the induction of response but not in the induction of remission. When compared against each other, biologic therapies showed no significant difference in the induction of remission. Based on the available data, infliximab is the preferred first-line treatment. As for other biologics, the limited published data do not allow us to make firm recommendations. This study supports current practice and emphasizes the need for dedicated RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of biologic therapies in fistulizing CD.

Despite the era of biologic therapies, the management of fistulizing Crohn's disease remains challenging. This is the first systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of biologic therapies in inducing response and remission in patients with fistulizing Crohn's disease. We found that anti-tumor necrosis factor agents are effective in inducing response and remission. Infliximab was superior to adalimumab for inducing response but not for inducing remission.

Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Post-ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis Surgery Chronic Inflammatory Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Chronic inflammatory disorders after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery are common. These include chronic pouchitis (CP), Crohn's disease (CD) of the pouch, prepouch ileitis (PI) and rectal cuff inflammation (cuffitis). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of biologic therapies in treating these disorders. Method: Systematic review of all published studies from inception to August 1, 2021 was performed to investigate the efficacy of biologic therapies for post-IPAA chronic inflammatory disorders. The primary outcome was the efficacy of biologic therapies in achieving complete clinical response in patients with IPAA. Results: A total of 26 studies were identified including 741 patients. Using a random-effect model, the efficacy of infliximab in achieving complete clinical response in patients with CP was 51% (95% CI, 36 to 66), whereas the efficacy of adalimumab was 47% (95% CI, 31 to 64). The efficacies of ustekinumab and vedolizumab were 41% (95% CI, 06 to 88) and 63% (95% CI, 35 to 84), respectively. In patients with CD/PI, the efficacy of infliximab in achieving complete clinical response was 52% (95% CI, 33 to 71), whereas the efficacy of adalimumab was 51% (95% CI, 40 to 61). The efficacies of ustekinumab and vedolizumab were 42% (95% CI, 06 to 90) and 67% (95% CI, 38 to 87), respectively. Only one study involved patients with cuffitis. Conclusion: Ustekinumab, infliximab, vedolizumab and adalimumab are effective in achieving complete clinical response in post-IPAA surgery chronic inflammatory disorders. More studies are needed to determine the efficacy of biologics in cuffitis.

The Role of Clinical Pharmacists in Improving Quality of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Evaluation of Patients' and Physicians' Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic and complex disease that requires a multidisciplinary team, including clinical pharmacists, to improve the quality of care and patient outcome. This present study aimed to assess the satisfaction of patients with IBD and physicians regarding clinical pharmacist interventions in outpatient and inpatient settings. METHODS: A survey-based study was performed between 1 March and 1 August 2022 in a tertiary care IBD center. Two different questionnaires were distributed among patients and physicians focusing on satisfaction with the clinical pharmacist services. Patient demographics were obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results of the survey. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients with IBD and 23 physicians participated in this study. Among study participants, Crohn's disease (CD) accounted for 64.8% of the total participants, while 35.2% of patients had ulcerative colitis (UC). Regarding the patient survey, most patients were extremely satisfied with clinical pharmacists' services, during which the majority strongly agreed or agreed that they were satisfied with the counseling session. However, five patients were unsure about the amount of time spent with the clinical pharmacist. There were no patients dissatisfied with any of the services. Finally, two physicians were not sure regarding clinical pharmacists monitoring patients' responses in of terms of toxicity and adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: the current study illustrates patients' and physicians' high satisfaction with clinical pharmacists' services in outpatient and inpatient settings. The findings of this study as well as previous studies necessitate expanding the clinical pharmacist services in the gastroenterology field.

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Willingness among Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Infliximab and Vedolizumab: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination has been effective in preventing COVID-19 infections and related mortality. However, waning immunity after two-dose vaccination prompted health authorities to recommend a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine to boost immunity. The aim of our study was to assess willingness to receive a third (booster) dose among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at an IBD tertiary care center. Patients were recruited at the infusion room from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022. The primary outcome was the prevalence of a third (booster) dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine in infliximab- or vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. The secondary outcome evaluated whether the prevalence of a third (booster) dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine differed based on type of COVID-19 vaccine, gender, age, type of biologic therapy, and citizenship. RESULTS: In total, 499 patients with IBD were included in this study. The median age was 34.5 years, and 60% had ulcerative colitis (UC). Among the study participants, 302 (60.5%) patients were vaccinated with BNT162b2, and 197 (39.5%) were vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Of the total number of participants, 400 (80.2%) were receiving infliximab, and 99 (19.8%) were receiving vedolizumab. Overall, 290 (58.1%) of the included patients were willing to receive the third (booster) dose. Patients vaccinated with BNT162b2 were more likely to be willing to receive a booster dose compared to patients vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (201 (66.5%) vs. 103 (52.0%), p = 0.014). Infliximab-treated patients were more likely to be willing to receive a booster dose compared to patients receiving vedolizumab (310 (77.5%) vs. 62 (62.6%), p = 0.002). There was no statistical difference in willingness to receive a booster dose in terms of age, nationality, or gender. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with IBD willing to receive or having already received a third (booster) dose of BNT162b2 vaccine was lower compared to the general population. In addition, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 vaccines were more likely to be willing to receive a third (booster) dose compared to patients who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Patients treated with infliximab were more likely to be willing to receive a third (booster) dose of COVID-19 vaccine.

Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster Dose in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Receiving Infliximab Combination Therapy: A Prospective Observational Study.

Introduction: Few data exist regarding the immunogenicity of the third dose of BNT162b2 relative to the second dose in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on different immunosuppressive therapies. We investigated the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 vaccine booster dose in patients with IBD on infliximab combination therapy. Method: This is a prospective single-center observational study conducted from January 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022. Patients were recruited at the time of attendance at the infusion center. Eligibility criteria included patients with a confirmed diagnosis of IBD who are receiving infliximab with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine. Patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine (second dose group) were compared to patients who had received three doses of BNT162b2 vaccine [third dose (booster) group]. Patients were excluded if they were infected or had symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) previously since the start of the pandemic or received other vaccines than the BNT162b2. Our primary outcome was the concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralizing antibodies 40-45 weeks from the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with IBD receiving infliximab combination therapy. Medians with interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Results: In total, 162 patients with IBD and receiving infliximab combination therapy were recruited, and the number of patients in both the second dose group and third dose (booster) group was 81. Mean age was 35 years old in both groups. Median (IQR) SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly lower after the second dose [125 BAU/ml (43, 192)] compared to patients who received the third booster dose [207 BAU/ml (181, 234)] (P = 0.003). Neutralizing antibody levels were also lower after the second dose [80% (21, 95)] compared to patients who received the third booster dose [96% (93, 99)] (P ≤ 0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels in the third (booster) dose group was 96.3%, whereas it was 86.4% in the second dose group. The percentage of participants who received the third (booster) dose and achieved a positive SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibody level was 100%, whereas it was 88.9% in the participants who received the second dose only. Conclusion: Most patients with IBD on infliximab combination therapy had positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralizing antibody concentrations 40-45 weeks post BNT162b2 vaccination. However, SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralizing antibody concentrations were lower in patients who received two doses only compared to patients who received a third dose. A longer follow-up study is needed to evaluate decay in antibodies over time.

Impact of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination on the Development of Short and Long-Term Vaccine-Related Adverse Events in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multi-Center Prospective Study.

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination has been effective in protecting against severe COVID-19 infections and related mortality. It is recommended for all individuals including patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, safety data are lacking in this group of patients. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the short- and long-term vaccine related adverse events (AEs) in patients with IBD. Methods: This is a prospective, observational cohort study investigating short- and long-term AEs related to the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with IBD (study group) after the first and second dose compared to healthy participants (control group). Patients were recruited at the time of attendance to the clinic or infusion rooms. Short term (<3 weeks) localized and systemic AEs were assessed via questionnaire. Follow-up phone-based survey was made to collect data on long term (up to 24 weeks) AEs. Results: A total of 408 patients answered the questionnaires, 204 patients in each group, the study and control group. No serious adverse events were reported in either the study or the control group after the first or the second dose. Participants in the control group reported more frequent pain at the injection site than those in the study group after the first dose [58 (57%) vs. 38 (37%) respectively, P = 0.005]. After the second dose, tiredness was reported more frequently in the control group [49 (48%)] compared to the study group [25 (24%) (P < 0.001)]. At 20-24 weeks post vaccination, 386 out of 408 (94.6%) patients were willing to participate in the follow-up phone based questionnaire [196 (96.1%) in the study group vs. 190 (93.1%) in the control group]. In both groups, none of the patients reported local, systemic, or severe adverse events (0 out of 386) at week 20-24 post second dose. Conclusion: The BNT162b2 vaccine is safe in patients with IBD. No severe or long-term adverse events were reported in our study. The frequency of local and systemic adverse events after the second dose was generally higher among healthy participants compared to patients with IBD. Further studies including a larger cohort with a longer follow-up duration are needed to assess for possible rare adverse events.

Impact of biologics and small molecules for inflammatory bowel disease on COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Aim: The use of biologics and small molecules has been a concern for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the association between the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and these agents. Methods: We made a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies from December 2019 to September 2021 to identify studies that reported COVID-19-related hospitalization in IBD patients receiving biologic therapies or tofacitinib. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) to compare the relative risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization in patients receiving these medications to those who were not, at the time of the study. Results: Eighteen studies were included. The relative risk of hospitalization was significantly lower in patients with IBD and COVID-19 who were receiving biologic therapy (RR = 0.47 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.42-0.52, P < 0.00001]) compared to patients not receiving biologics. The RR was lower in patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factors (TNFs) compared to those who were not (RR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.41-0.55, P < 0.00001]). A similar finding was observed in patients taking ustekinumab (RR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.43-0.72, P < 0.00001]). Combination therapy involving anti-TNF and an immunomodulator did not lower the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.82-1.18, P = 0.84]). The use of vedolizumab (RR = 1.13 [95% CI: 0.75-1.73, P = 0.56]) or tofacitinib (RR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.49-1.33, P = 0.40]) was not associated with a lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization. Conclusion: Regarding COVID-19-related hospitalization in IBD, anti-TNFs and ustekinumab were associated with decreased risk of hospitalization. In addition, vedolizumab and tofacitinib were not associated with COVID-19-related hospitalization.

Impact of tumor necrosis factor antagonist combination and anti-integrin therapies on body mass index in inflammatory bowel disease: A cross-sectional study.

Background: The impact of biologic therapies on body mass index (BMI) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unclear. This study investigates any associations between BMI, type of IBD, and the type of medications taken among patients with IBD with varying weight categories. Methods: A cross sectional study was performed in an IBD tertiary care center. Data was obtained from patients with IBD attending outpatient clinics from January 1st, 2021 until November 1st, 2021. Adult patients, older than 18 years, with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) were recruited. The primary outcome was the association between BMI and medication used in IBD. The secondary outcome was the association between BMI and disease type and location in patients with IBD. Results: The study included a total of 528 patients of which, 66.5% have CD. Patients with normal weight comprises 55.9% of the participants, while those who are underweight, overweight or obese are 3.4, 28.2, and 12.5%, respectively. None of the underweight patients had UC. Among the normal weight, overweight and obese BMI categories, 34.6% vs. 36.2% vs. 31.8% had UC, respectively. Patients who are on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNF) with an immunomodulator (anti-TNF combination), are more likely to be overweight or obese than patients who are not on anti-TNF combination (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.739-4.711, p < 0.001). Patients on vedolizumab are twice as likely to be overweight or obese than patients not on vedolizumab (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.086-4.584, p < 0.05). Patients with ileocolonic CD are more likely to be overweight or obese compared to other subtypes of CD (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.14-2.77, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Many patients with IBD are either obese or overweight. Patients with IBD who are on anti-TNF combination therapy or vedolizumab monotherapy are more likely to be obese and overweight. In addition, patients will ileocolonic CD are more likely to be obese or overweight.

Serological Response to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccines in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Biologic Therapies.

Introduction: The immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on biologic therapies is not well studied. The goal of this study was to measure the serological response to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in patients with IBD receiving different biologic therapies. Methods: We performed a multi-center prospective study between 1 August 2021 and 15 September 2021. We measured the seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and neutralizing antibody concentrations in patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies 4-10 weeks after their second dose or 3-6 weeks after their first dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Results: A total of 126 patients were enrolled (mean age, 31 years; 60% male; 71% Crohn's disease, 29% ulcerative colitis). Of these, 92 patients were vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine (73%) and 34 patients with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (27%). In patients being treated with infliximab and adalimumab, the proportion of patients who achieved positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels after receiving two doses of the vaccine were 44 out of 59 patients (74.5%) and 13 out of 16 patients (81.2%), respectively. In contrast, of those receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab, the proportion of patients who achieved positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels after receiving two doses of the vaccine were 100% and 92.8%, respectively. In patients receiving infliximab and adalimumab, the proportion of patients who had positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels after two-dose vaccination was 40 out of 59 patients (67.7%) and 14 out 16 patients (87.5%), respectively. On the other hand, the proportion of patients who had positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels were 12 out of 13 patients (92.3%) and 13 out of 14 patients (92.8%) in patients receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of patients with IBD who were on infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab seroconverted after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. All patients on ustekinumab seroconverted after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are both likely to be effective after two doses in patients with IBD on biologics. Larger follow-up studies are needed to evaluate if decay of antibodies occurs over time.

Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Infliximab Combination Therapy: A Multicenter Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a promising strategy to protect vulnerable groups like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients against COVID-19 and associated severe outcomes. COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials excluded IBD patients taking infliximab with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine (infliximab combination). Therefore, we sought to evaluate serologic responses to COVID-19 vaccination with the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, in patients with IBD receiving infliximab combination therapy compared with healthy participants. METHOD: This was a multicenter prospective study. Patients with IBD were recruited at the time of attendance at infusion center between 1 August 2021, and 15 September 2021. Our primary outcome were the concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 4-10 weeks after vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with IBD taking infliximab combination therapy (study group) compared with a healthy participants group (control group). Both study and control groups were matched for age, sex, and time-since-last-vaccine-dose using optimal pair-matching method. RESULTS: In total, 116 participants were recruited in the study, 58 patients in the study group and 58 in the control group. Median (IQR) IgG concentrations were lower in the study group (99 BAU/mL (40, 177)) than the control group (139 BAU/mL (120, 188)) following vaccination (p = 0.0032). Neutralizing antibodies were also lower in the study group compared with the control group (64% (23, 94) vs. 91% (85, 94), p < 0.001). The median IgA levels in the study group were also significantly lower when compared with the control group (6 U/mL (3, 34) vs. 13 U/mL (7, 30), p = 0.0097). In the study group, the percentages of patients who achieved positive IgG, neutralizing antibody and IgA levels were 81%, 75%, and 40%, respectively. In the control group, all participants (100%) had positive IgG and neutralizing antibody levels while 62% had positive IgA levels. CONCLUSION: In patients with IBD receiving infliximab combination therapy, SARS-CoV2 IgG, IgA, and neutralizing antibody levels after BNT162b2 vaccination were lower compared with healthy participants. However, most patients treated with infliximab combination therapy seroconverted after two doses of the vaccine.

Impact of medical therapies for inflammatory bowel disease on the severity of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, the safety of medical therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in relation to COVID-19 has emerged as an area of concern. This study aimed to evaluate the association between IBD therapies and severe COVID-19 outcomes. METHOD: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies from December 2019 to August 2021 to identify studies that reported severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on current IBD therapies including 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), immunomodulators, corticosteroids, biologics, combination therapy, or tofacitinib. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were identified. Corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 1.91 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.91, p=0.003)) and 5-ASA (RR 1.50 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.93, p=0.001)) were associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD patients. However, possible confounders for 5-ASA use were not controlled for. Sub-analysis showed that corticosteroids increased the risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission but not mortality. Immunomodulators alone (RR 1.18 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.59, p=0.28)) or in combination with anti-TNFs ((RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.15, p=0.63)), tofacitinib (RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.33, p=0.40)) and vedolizumab ((RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.31, p=0.89)) were not associated with severe disease. Anti-TNFs (RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.54, p<0.00001)) and ustekinumab (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.72, p<0.00001)) were associated with decreased risk of severe COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In patients with IBD, the risk of severe COVID-19 is higher among patients receiving corticosteroids. Corticosteroid use was associated with ICU admission but not mortality. The risk is also higher among patients receiving 5-ASAs. However, patient-level data were lacking and insufficient data existed for meta-regression analyses to adjust for confounding. Vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and immunomodulators alone or in combination with anti-TNF were not associated with severe disease. Anti-TNFs, and ustekinumab were associated with favourable outcomes.

Gastroenterological and hepatic manifestations of patients with COVID-19, prevalence, mortality by country, and intensive care admission rate: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 usually report fever and respiratory symptoms. However, multiple gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations such as diarrhoea and abdominal pain have been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of GI symptoms, elevated liver enzymes and mortality of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that included a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were performed from 1 December 2019 to 15 December 2020. Data were collected by conducting a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We analysed pooled data on the prevalence of individual GI symptoms and elevated liver enzymes and performed subanalyses to investigate the relationship between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes, geographical location, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: The available data of 78 798 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 from 158 studies were included in our analysis. The most frequent manifestations were diarrhoea (16.5%, 95% CI 14.2% to 18.4%), nausea (9.7%, 95% CI 9.0% to 13.2%) and elevated liver enzymes (5.6%, 95% CI 4.2% to 9.1%). The overall mortality and GI mortality were 23.5% (95% CI 21.2% to 26.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI 3.1% to 6.2%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed non-statistically significant associations between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes and ICU admissions (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.83). The GI mortality was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5% to 2.2%) in China and 10.8% (95% CI 7.8% to 11.3%) in the USA. CONCLUSION: GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes are common in patients with COVID-19. Our subanalyses showed that the presence of GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes does not appear to affect mortality or ICU admission rate. Furthermore, the proportion of GI mortality among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 varied based on geographical location.