Addendum to S3-Guidelines Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis: Management of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the COVID-19 Pandemic – open questions and answers

Questions to consider when caring for patients with ulcerative colitis

Although the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) is well defined by national and international guidelines, there are many debates and open questions related to daily care of UC patients. Here, we aimed to review topics with high clinical relevance including therapy algorithms, potential biomarkers for disease prognosis and response to therapy, the role of interventions targeting the gut microbiota, insights from head-to-head trials, novel UC medications, exit strategies, the impact of COVID19 on UC, care of patients with acute severe disease, cancer screening, and the role of surgery.

Mind-body-medicine and comprehensive lifestyle-modification in patients with Crohn's disease—Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial under pandemic circumstances

Introduction

Mind-body medicine (MBM) focuses on stress reduction and lifestyle changes. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to test study feasibility of a complex integrative MBM program for patients with Crohn's disease (CD), especially in rural regions, and under pandemic conditions.

Methods

Patients were stratified and randomized to the intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). The intervention included a weekly 6-h session for 10 weeks. The CG (waiting list) received an initial 90-min workshop and started the intervention 9 months later. The primary outcome for study feasibility was recruitment and retention rates, as well as reasons for drop-out. The trial took place in Bamberg, Germany (September 2020 to December 2021).

Results

Totally 700 members of the German Crohn's and Colitis Organization—DCCV—were contacted. A total of 15% (102/700; 95% CI 12–17%) expressed interest to participate. Following screening, 41% (95% CI 32–50) were randomized to IG (n = 22) and CG (n = 20). The patients were on average (±standard deviation) 48 ± 13 years old, 67% were female, and have been suffering from CD for 20 ± 12 years. Patients traveled 71.5 ± 48.7 km (range: 9–227 km) to the intervention with no differences between IG and CG. At the 6-month follow-up, 36/42 (86%, 95% CI 74–95%) participants completed final assessment and 19/22 (86%, 95% CI 70–100%) the intervention. The most important reasons for non-responding were work-related (12/60; 20%) and for or drop-out pandemic-related anxiety (3/6). No patient and staff member became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study.

Conclusion

The feasibility of the MBM study was confirmed in terms of predefined recruitment and retention criteria, both despite difficult conditions (including the rural setting) and patients' fears associated with the pandemic. It was crucial to develop appropriate hygiene and safety concepts that enable chronically ill patients to participate in helpful group-based interventions even under pandemic conditions.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT05182645.

[What is confirmed in the treatment of chronic inflammatory bowel diseases]

The prevalence of the chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (CIBD) Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) is on the rise worldwide. In Germany CIBDs are also a significant healthcare problem. The pathogenesis is complex and involves genetic factors, environmental aspects and changes in the immunological constitution. Furthermore, the gut microbiota plays a role in the maintenance of intestinal inflammation. Fortunately, several new drugs, in particular biologicals, have been approved for the treatment of CIBDs. The treatment of UC is mainly based on 5‑aminosalicylic acid formulations, preferably as a topical form for distal colitis and proctitis as well as local budesonide formulations. In the case of extensive spread, high disease activity and refractory disease antibodies (biologicals) are successfully used, similar to CD. In addition to anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies (infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab), vedolizumab, an anti-integrin antibody and the interleukin 12/23 antibody ustekinumab can be successfully used. The intravenous and also subcutaneous administration of antibodies are increasing in importance and are now available for all forms. Furthermore, the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib is an orally administered option for UC. Clinical scores, endoscopy, ultrasound, laboratory parameters and calprotectin determination in stool are employed to evaluate treatment response (treat to target approach). Ultimately, the long-term goal is mucosal healing. Despite advances in the pharmaceutical treatment, a significant number of patients with CIBD still suffer from treatment refractory courses and need surgery at some time during the disease.

[Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Symptoms and Therapy of Inflammatory Bowel Disease]

INTRODUCTION

The influence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not yet been well characterized and it is unclear whether this requires an adaptation of the immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

A national register was established for the retrospective documentation of clinical parameters and changes in immunosuppressive therapy in SARS-CoV-2 infected IBD patients.

RESULTS

In total, only 3 of 185 IBD patients (1.6 %) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection because of abdominal symptoms. In the course of COVID-19 disease, 43.5 % developed diarrhea, abdominal pain or hematochezia (risk of hospitalization with vs. without abdominal symptoms: 20.0 % vs. 10.6 %, p < 0.01). With active IBD at the time of SARS-CoV-2 detection, there was an increased risk of hospitalization (remission 11.2 %, active IBD 23.3 % p < 0.05). IBD-specific therapy remained unchanged in 115 patients (71.4 %); the most common change was an interruption of systemic therapy (16.2 %).

DISCUSSION

New abdominal symptoms often appeared in SARS-CoV-2 infected IBD patients. However, these only rarely led to SARS-CoV-2 testing. A high IBD activity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 detection was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization.

From first to second wave: follow-up of the prospective COVID-19 cohort (KoCo19) in Munich (Germany)

BACKGROUND

In the 2nd year of the COVID-19 pandemic, knowledge about the dynamics of the infection in the general population is still limited. Such information is essential for health planners, as many of those infected show no or only mild symptoms and thus, escape the surveillance system. We therefore aimed to describe the course of the pandemic in the Munich general population living in private households from April 2020 to January 2021.

METHODS

The KoCo19 baseline study took place from April to June 2020 including 5313 participants (age 14 years and above). From November 2020 to January 2021, we could again measure SARS-CoV-2 antibody status in 4433 of the baseline participants (response 83%). Participants were offered a self-sampling kit to take a capillary blood sample (dry blood spot; DBS). Blood was analysed using the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche). Questionnaire information on socio-demographics and potential risk factors assessed at baseline was available for all participants. In addition, follow-up information on health-risk taking behaviour and number of personal contacts outside the household (N = 2768) as well as leisure time activities (N = 1263) were collected in summer 2020.

RESULTS

Weighted and adjusted (for specificity and sensitivity) SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence at follow-up was 3.6% (95% CI 2.9-4.3%) as compared to 1.8% (95% CI 1.3-3.4%) at baseline. 91% of those tested positive at baseline were also antibody-positive at follow-up. While sero-prevalence increased from early November 2020 to January 2021, no indication of geospatial clustering across the city of Munich was found, although cases clustered within households. Taking baseline result and time to follow-up into account, men and participants in the age group 20-34 years were at the highest risk of sero-positivity. In the sensitivity analyses, differences in health-risk taking behaviour, number of personal contacts and leisure time activities partly explained these differences.

CONCLUSION

The number of citizens in Munich with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was still below 5% during the 2nd wave of the pandemic. Antibodies remained present in the majority of SARS-CoV-2 sero-positive baseline participants. Besides age and sex, potentially confounded by differences in behaviour, no major risk factors could be identified. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures are thus still important.