Extensive splanchnic vein thrombosis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: A Vascular Liver Disease Group (VALDIG) initiative

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, several cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) have been described, especially cerebral vein thrombosis. We aimed to retrospectively collect all new cases of acute onset first or recurrent splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) following a recent SARS-CoV-2 vaccination within the Vascular Liver Disease Group network.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

New cases of SVT were identified from April 2021 to April 2022; follow-up was completed on December 31, 2022. Criteria to define VITT were derived from previous studies. Data from a pre-COVID cohort of patients with SVT (N=436) were used for comparison of clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome. Twenty-nine patients were identified with SVT occurring with a median of 11 days (range 2-76) after the first (48%), second (41%), or third (10%) vaccination (ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (n=12) or BNT162b2 (n=14), other (n=3) Only 2 patients(7%) fulfilled criteria for definite VITT. Twenty (69%) had SVT at multiple sites, including 4 (14%) with concomitant extra-abdominal thrombosis. Only 28% had an underlying prothrombotic condition, compared to 52% in the pre-COVID SVT cohort ( p =0.01). Five patients (17%) underwent bowel resection for mesenteric ischemia, compared with 3% in pre-COVID SVT ( p <0.001). Two patients died shortly after diagnosis (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although definite VITT was rare, in 72% of cases, no other cause for SVT could be identified following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These cases were different from patients with nonvaccine-related SVT, with lower incidence of prothrombotic conditions, higher rates of bowel ischemia, and poorer outcome. Although SVT after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is rare in absolute terms, these data remain relevant considering ongoing revaccination programs.

Corrigendum: PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint therapy demonstrates favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1326078.].

PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint therapy demonstrates favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of many malignancies in recent years. However, immune-related adverse events (irAE) are a frequent concern in clinical practice. The safety profile of ICI for the treatment of malignancies in patients diagnosed with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease (AILD) remains unclear. Due to this uncertainty, these patients were excluded from ICI clinical trials and ICI are withheld from this patient group. In this retrospective multicenter study, we assessed the safety of ICI in patients with AILD.

Methods

We contacted tertiary referral hospitals for the identification of AILD patients under ICI treatment in Europe via the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases (ERN RARE-LIVER). Fourteen centers contributed data on AILD patients with malignancies being treated with ICI, another three centers did not treat these patients with ICI due to fear of irAEs.

Results

In this study, 22 AILD patients under ICI treatment could be identified. Among these patients, 12 had primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), five had primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), four had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and one patient had an AIH-PSC variant syndrome. Eleven patients had hepatobiliary cancers and the other 11 patients presented with non-hepatic tumors. The applied ICIs were atezolizumab (n=7), durvalumab (n=5), pembrolizumab (n=4), nivolumab (n=4), spartalizumab (n=1), and in one case combined immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Among eight patients who presented with grade 1 or 2 irAEs, three demonstrated liver irAEs. Cases with grades ≥ 3 irAEs were not reported. No significant changes in liver tests were observed during the first year after the start of ICI.

Discussion

This European multicenter study demonstrates that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors appear to be safe in patients with AILD. Further studies on the safety of more potent dual immune checkpoint therapy are needed. We conclude that immunotherapy should not categorically be withheld from patients with AILD.

Computer-assisted instruction before colonoscopy is as effective as nurse counselling, a clinical pilot trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Better patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We reasoned that computer assisted instruction (CAI) using video and 3 D animations followed by nurse contact maximizes the effectiveness of nurse counselling, increases proportion of clean colons and improves patient experience.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Adults referred for colonoscopy in a high-volume endoscopy unit in the Netherlands were included. Exclusion criteria were illiteracy in Dutch and audiovisual handicaps. Patients were prospectively divided into 2 groups, 1 group received nurse counselling and 1 group received CAI and a nurse contact before colonoscopy. The main outcome, cleanliness of the colon during examination, was measured with Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). We assessed patient comfort and anxiety at 3 different time points.

RESULTS

 We included 385 patients: 197 received traditional nurse counselling and 188 received CAI. Overall patient response rates were 99 %, 76.4 % and 69.9 % respectively. Endoscopists scored cleanliness in 60.8 %. Comparative analysis of the 39.2 % of patients with missing scores showed no significant difference on age, gender or educational level. Baseline characteristics were evenly distributed over the groups. Bowel cleanliness was satisfactory and did not differ amongst groups: nurse vs. CAI group scores in BBPS: (6.54 ± 1.69 vs. 6.42 ± 1.62); OBPS: (6.07 ± 2.53 vs. 5.80 ± 2.90). Patient comfort scores were significantly higher (4.29 ± 0.62 vs. 4.42 ± 0.68) in the CAI group shortly before colonoscopy. Anxiety and knowledge scores were similar.

CONCLUSION

 CAI is a safe and practical tool to instruct patients before colonoscopy. We recommend the combination of CAI with a short nurse contact for daily practice.