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.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating three low-volume preparations for colonoscopy in outpatients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: the EII-PREP trial

BACKGROUND

Data regarding bowel preparation in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are scarce.

AIM

To compare efficacy, safety, and tolerability of low-volume preparations in patients with IBD.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized, prescriber, and colonoscopist-blinded clinical trial. IBD outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 Liter-polyethylene glycol-ascorbate (1L-PEG), 2 Liters-PEG, or sodium picosulfate (SP). The primary endpoint was percentage of quality cleansing assessed via the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS ≥6, segments ≥2). Secondary endpoints were total high quality cleansing (BBPS 8 or 9), high-quality segmental BBPS (≥2), and patients' tolerability, symptoms, and satisfaction, assessed by questionnaires. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting, laboratory evaluation at colonoscopy, and telephonic follow-up.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were included (33 1L-PEG, 28 2L-PEG, and 31 SP). No significant differences between preparations were observed in quality or high-quality total BBPS or high-quality segmental BBPS. Complete intake of the solution was higher for SP (p = 0.006) and lower for 1L-PEG (p = 0.02) compared to 2L-PEG intake (p = 0.55). Clinically irrelevant hyponatremia was higher in the SP group (p < 0.0001). SP instructions were easier to understand from patient's point of view (p = 0.01). Willingness to retake was higher with SP (p < 0.0001) and less for 1L-PEG (p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no differences in efficacy between low-volume preparations in patients with IBD. Complete intake was higher for SP and lower for 1L-PEG. SP and 2L-PEG instructions were better understood and graded, and SP was more likely to be retaken. Willingness to retake was lower for 1L-PEG. No serious adverse events were reported.

SUMMARY

No differences in terms of efficacy were regarded in this clinical trial comparing low-volume preparations for colonoscopy in patients with IBD: however, Sodium Pisoculfate is better tolerated and accepted from patient's point of view. No serious adverse events were reported.