Efficacy and Safety of Vedolizumab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Association with Vedolizumab Drug Levels.

BACKGROUND: Vedolizumab (VDZ) is a well-established and important therapeutic option in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the significance of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with VDZ remains a contradictory field in daily clinical practice. Our study aims to clarify the predictive impact of VDZ drug levels in long-term clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) from a tertiary IBD referral center at the University Hospital Augsburg, Germany, were enrolled in this single-center retrospective data analysis. Clinical and endoscopic data were collected at month 6, month 12, and at the last time of follow-up, and outcomes were correlated with VDZ levels at week 6. RESULTS: This study included 95 patients, 68.4% (n = 65) with UC, 24.2% (n = 23) with CD, and 7.4% (n = 7) with indeterminate colitis (CI). Patients with a mean VDZ treatment time of 17.83 months ± 14.56 showed clinical response in 29.5% (n = 28) and clinical remission in 45.3% (n = 43) at the end of the study. Endoscopic response occurred in 20.0% (n = 19) and endoscopic remission in 29.5% (n = 28) at the end of the study. The sustained beneficial effect of VDZ was also reflected in a significant change in biomarker levels. VDZ trough level at week 6 was determined in 48.4% (n = 46) with a mean of 41.79 µg/mL ± 24.58. A significant association between VDZ level at week 6 and both short and long-term outcomes could not be demonstrated. However, numerically higher VDZ levels were seen in patients with endoscopic and clinical improvement at month 6 and at the time of last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated efficacy and safety for VDZ in a real-world cohort. Although, for some parameters, a clear trend for higher VDZ levels at week 6 was seen, the efficacy of VDZ was not significantly correlated to VDZ level at week 6, which questions the predictive value of VDZ levels in the real world.

Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results of a Single-Center Cohort Study in a Tertiary Hospital in Germany.

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.

Comparison of the Development of SARS-Coronavirus-2-Specific Cellular Immunity, and Central Memory CD4+ T-Cell Responses Following Infection versus Vaccination.

Memory T-cell responses following infection with coronaviruses are reportedly long-lived and provide long-term protection against severe disease. Whether vaccination induces similar long-lived responses is not yet clear since, to date, there are limited data comparing memory CD4+ T-cell responses induced after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus following vaccination with BioNTech/Pfizer BNT162b2. We compared T-cell immune responses over time after infection or vaccination using ELISpot, and memory CD4+ T-cell responses three months after infection/vaccination using activation-induced marker flow cytometric assays. Levels of cytokine-producing T-cells were remarkably stable between three and twelve months after infection, and were comparable to IFNγ+ and IFNγ+IL-2+ T-cell responses but lower than IL-2+ T-cell responses at three months after vaccination. Consistent with this finding, vaccination and infection elicited comparable levels of SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T-cells after three months in addition to comparable proportions of specific central memory CD4+ T-cells. By contrast, the proportions of specific effector memory CD4+ T-cells were significantly lower, whereas specific effector CD4+ T-cells were higher after infection than after vaccination. Our results suggest that T-cell responses-as measured by cytokine expression-and the frequencies of SARS-CoV-2-specific central memory CD4+T-cells-indicative of the formation of the long-lived memory T-cell compartment-are comparably induced after infection and vaccination.

Gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic findings in critically and non-critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Results from Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) and COKA registries.

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.

[Impact of Covid 19 on endoscopy in Germany]. / Ein Jahr Covid-19: Testung, Verwendung von Schutzausrüstung und Auswirkungen auf die Gastrointestinale Endoskopie in Deutschland.

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.

Evaluation of the ESGE recommendations for COVID-19 pre-endoscopy risk-stratification in a high-volume center in Germany.

Background and study aims The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has defined COVID-19 infection prevention and control strategies within the endoscopy unit. These include pre-endoscopic questionnaire-based risk-stratification as well as pre-procedure viral testing. Real-life data on the effectiveness of these measures are presented here. Patients and methods Data from the outpatient endoscopic unit of the University Hospital Augsburg between July 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 including the second pandemic wave were reviewed retrospectively. All patients were assessed with a pre-endoscopic risk-stratification questionnaire as well as viral testing using an antigen point-of-care test (Ag-POCT) in conjunction with a standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Highly elective procedures were postponed. The theoretically expected number of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was simulated and compared with the actual number. In addition, endoscopy staff was evaluated with a rapid antibody test to determine the number of infections among the personnel. Results In total, 1029 procedures, 591 questionnaires, 591 Ag-POCTs, and 529 standard PCR tests were performed in 591 patients. 247 procedures in 142 patients were postponed. One Ag-POCT was positive but with a negative PCR test, while one PCR test was positive but with a negative Ag-POCT. This was lower than the theoretically expected number of COVID-19-positive patients (n = 15). One of 43 employees (2.3 %) in the outpatient endoscopy unit was seropositive. Conclusions Pre-endoscopic risk management including questionnaire-based risk stratification and viral testing seems to be an effective tool in combination with personal protective equipment for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control within the endoscopy unit even in a high-prevalence setting.