Outcomes and Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases - A Danish Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study with Individual-Level Data

Mendelian randomization and Bayesian model averaging of autoimmune diseases and Long COVID

Background

Following COVID-19, reports suggest Long COVID and autoimmune diseases (AIDs) in infected individuals. However, bidirectional causal effects between Long COVID and AIDs, which may help to prevent diseases, have not been fully investigated.

Methods

Summary-level data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of Long COVID (N = 52615) and AIDs including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (N = 377277), Crohn's disease (CD) (N = 361508), ulcerative colitis (UC) (N = 376564), etc. were employed. Bidirectional causal effects were gauged between AIDs and Long COVID by exploiting Mendelian randomization (MR) and Bayesian model averaging (BMA).

Results

The evidence of causal effects of IBD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.11, p = 3.13E-02), CD (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.01-1.19, p = 2.21E-02) and UC (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03-1.13, p = 2.35E-03) on Long COVID was found. In MR-BMA, UC was estimated as the highest-ranked causal factor (MIP = 0.488, MACE = 0.035), followed by IBD and CD.

Conclusion

This MR study found that IBD, CD and UC had causal effects on Long COVID, which suggests a necessity to screen high-risk populations.

Disparities in COVID-19 mortality amongst the immunosuppressed: A systematic review and meta-analysis for enhanced disease surveillance

BACKGROUND

Effective disease surveillance, including that for COVID-19, is compromised without a standardised method for categorising the immunosuppressed as a clinical risk group.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether excess COVID-associated mortality compared to the immunocompetent could meaningfully subdivide the immunosuppressed. Our study adhered to UK Immunisation against infectious disease (Green Book) criteria for defining and categorising immunosuppression. Using OVID (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Transplant Library, and Global Health), PubMed, and Google Scholar, we examined relevant literature between the entirety of 2020 and 2022. We selected for cohort studies that provided mortality data for immunosuppressed subgroups and immunocompetent comparators. Meta-analyses, grey literature and any original works that failed to provide comparator data or reported all-cause or paediatric outcomes were excluded. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of COVID-19 mortality were meta-analysed by immunosuppressed category and subcategory. Subgroup analyses differentiated estimates by effect measure, country income, study setting, level of adjustment, use of matching and publication year. Study screening, extraction and bias assessment were performed blinded and independently by two researchers; conflicts were resolved with the oversight of a third researcher. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022360755.

FINDINGS

We identified 99 unique studies, incorporating data from 1,542,097 and 56,248,181 unique immunosuppressed and immunocompetent patients with COVID-19 infection, respectively. Compared to immunocompetent people (pooled OR, 95%CI), solid organ transplants (2.12, 1.50-2.99) and malignancy (2.02, 1.69-2.42) patients had a very high risk of COVID-19 mortality. Patients with rheumatological conditions (1.28, 1.13-1.45) and HIV (1.20, 1.05-1.36) had just slightly higher risks than the immunocompetent baseline. Case type, setting income and mortality data matching and adjustment were significant modifiers of excess immunosuppressed mortality for some immunosuppressed subgroups.

INTERPRETATION

Excess COVID-associated mortality among the immunosuppressed compared to the immunocompetent was seen to vary significantly across subgroups. This novel means of subdivision has prospective benefit for targeting patient triage, shielding and vaccination policies during periods of high disease transmission.

Incidence and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the pre-Omicron era: A global systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

With the emergence of new variants and sub-lineages of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), reinfections can significantly impact herd immunity, vaccination policies, and decisions on other public health measures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the global evidence on SARS-CoV-2 reinfections in the pre-Omicron era.

Methods

We searched five global databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO COVID-19) on 12 May 2022 and 28 July 2023 and three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, CQvip) on 16 October 2022 for articles reporting incidence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection before the period of Omicron (B.1.1.529) predominance. We assessed risk of bias using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and conducted meta-analyses with random effects models to estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially infected cases and hospitalisation and mortality proportions among reinfected ones.

Results

We identified 7593 studies and extracted data from 64 included ones representing 21 countries. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was 1.16% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.33) based on 11 639 247 initially infected cases, with ≥45 days between the two infections. Healthcare providers (2.28%; 95% CI = 1.37-3.40) had a significantly higher risk of reinfection than the general population (1.00%; 95% CI = 0.81-1.20), while young adults aged 18 to 35 years (1.01%; 95% CI = 0.8-1.25) had a higher reinfection burden than other age groups (children <18 years old: 0.57%; 95% CI = 0.39-0.79, older adults aged 36-65 years old: 0.53%; 95% CI = 0.41-0.65, elderly >65 years old: 0.37%; 95% CI = 0.15-0.66). Among the reinfected cases, 8.12% (95% CI = 5.30-11.39) were hospitalised, 1.31% (95% CI = 0.29-2.83) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 0.71% (95% CI = 0.02-2.01) died.

Conclusions

Our data suggest a relatively low risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the pre-Omicron era, but the risk of hospitalisation was relatively high among the reinfected cases. Considering the possibility of underdiagnosis, the reinfection burden may be underestimated.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42023449712.

COVID-19 Does Not Lead to an Increase in Corticosteroid Prescriptions in IBD Patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

It is not known whether coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is a trigger for disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). In patients with IBD, we aimed to examine the association between COVID-19 infection and prescriptions of systemic and local corticosteroids (used as proxy for disease activity).

METHODS

This nationwide cohort study was based on Danish health registries and included all patients in Denmark with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) by the start of the pandemic (March 1, 2020) and who had a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test from March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022. We calculated rates of corticosteroid prescriptions 6 months before and 6 months after a positive COVID-19 PCR test, and we calculated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR).

RESULTS

We included 30,102 patients with IBD and a positive COVID-19 test (11,159 with CD, 18,493 with UC). The aIRR for having corticosteroid prescriptions after a COVID-19 positive test was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.91). When we stratified for underlying disease, the aIRR for having corticosteroid after a COVID-19 positive test in UC was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), and in CD 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.02). Stratifications according to calendar periods and age groups showed consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

An infection with COVID-19 did not result in a higher rate of filled corticosteroid prescriptions. Using corticosteroids as a proxy for disease activity, COVID-19 did not seem to trigger disease activity, which is a reassuring result for patients with IBD.

A bibliometric analysis of inflammatory bowel disease and COVID-19 researches

Background

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) often require immunosuppressive therapy and are hence susceptible to various opportunistic viral and bacterial infections. In this regard, many studies on IBD and COVID-19 have been conducted. However, no bibliometric analysis has been performed. This study provides a general overview of IBD and COVID-19.

Methods

Publications about IBD and COVID-19 from 2020 to 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and HistCite.

Results

A total of 396 publications were retrieved and considered in this study. The maximum number of publications were from the United States, Italy, and England, and the contributions of these countries were significant. Kappelman ranked first in article citations. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases were the most prolific affiliation and journal, respectively. The most influential research topics were "management", "impact", "vaccination", and "receptor". The following keywords represented research frontiers: "depression", "the quality of life of IBD patients", "infliximab", "COVID-19 vaccine", and "second vaccination".

Conclusions

Over the past 3 years, most studies on IBD and COVID-19 have focused on clinical research. In particular, topics such as "depression", "the quality of life of IBD patients", "infliximab", "COVID-19 vaccine", and "second vaccination" were noted to have received much attention recently. Future research should focus on our understanding of the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in biologically treated patients, the psychological impact of COVID-19, IBD management guidelines, and the long-term impact of COVID-19 in IBD patients. This study will provide researchers with a better understanding of research trends on IBD during COVID-19.

Comparison of Long COVID-19 Caused by Different SARS-CoV-2 Strains: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19 that is caused by different SARS-CoV-2 strains. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect databases in order to find cohort studies of long COVID-19 as defined by the WHO (Geneva, Switzerland). The main outcomes were in determining the percentages of long COVID-19 among patients who were infected with different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Further, this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022339964). A total of 51 studies with 33,573 patients was included, of which three studies possessed the Alpha and Delta variants, and five studies possessed the Omicron variant. The highest pooled estimate of long COVID-19 was found in the CT abnormalities (60.5%; 95% CI: 40.4%, 80.6%) for the wild-type strain; fatigue (66.1%; 95% CI: 42.2%, 89.9%) for the Alpha variant; and ≥1 general symptoms (28.4%; 95% CI: 7.9%, 49.0%) for the Omicron variant. The pooled estimates of ≥1 general symptoms (65.8%; 95% CI: 47.7%, 83.9%) and fatigue were the highest symptoms found among patients infected with the Alpha variant, followed by the wild-type strain, and then the Omicron variant. The pooled estimate of myalgia was highest among patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%; 95%: 8.3%, 15.1%), compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (9.4%; 95%: 6.3%, 12.5%). The pooled estimate of sleep difficulty was lowest among the patients infected with the Delta variant (2.5%; 95%: 0.2%, 4.9%) when compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (24.5%; 95%: 17.5%, 31.5%) and the Omicron variant (18.7%; 95%: 1.0%, 36.5%). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between long COVID-19 that has been caused by different strains, except in certain general symptoms (i.e., in the Alpha or Omicron variant) and in sleep difficulty (i.e., the wild-type strain). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its emerging variants, directing more attention to long COVID-19 that is caused by unique strains, as well as implementing targeted intervention measures to address it are vital.

COVID-19 is not associated with worse long-term inflammatory bowel disease outcomes: a multicenter case-control study

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not associated with worse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. However, data are lacking regarding the long-term impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection on the disease course of IBD.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on long-term outcomes of IBD.

DESIGN

We performed a multicenter case-control study of patients with IBD and COVID-19 between February 2020 and December 2020.

METHODS

Cases and controls were individuals with IBD with presence or absence, respectively, of COVID-19-related symptoms and confirmatory testing. The primary composite outcome was IBD-related hospitalization or surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 251 cases [ulcerative colitis (n = 111, 45%), Crohn's disease (n = 139, 55%)] and 251 controls, with a median follow-up of 394 days. The primary composite outcome of IBD-related hospitalization or surgery occurred in 29 (12%) cases versus 38 (15%) controls (p = 0.24) and on multivariate Cox regression, COVID-19 was not associated with increased risk of adverse IBD outcomes [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.42]. When stratified by infection severity, severe COVID-19 was associated with a numerically increased risk of adverse IBD outcomes (aHR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.00-5.86), whereas mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was not (aHR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.38-1.23).

CONCLUSION

In this case-control study, COVID-19 did not have a long-term impact on the disease course of IBD. However, severe COVID-19 was numerically associated with worse IBD outcomes, underscoring the continued importance of risk mitigation and prevention strategies for patients with IBD during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on the Course of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Patients Treated with Biological Therapeutic Agents: A Case-Control Study

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has raised concerns in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), not only due to consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 itself but also as a possible cause of IBD relapse. The main objective of this study was to assess the role of SARS-CoV-2 in IBD clinical recurrence in a cohort of patients undergoing biological therapy. Second, we evaluated the difference in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels between the start and end of the follow-up period (ΔCRP) and the rate of biological therapy discontinuation. Patients with IBD positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with non-infected patients. IBD recurrence was defined as the need for intensification of current therapy. We enrolled 95 IBD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 190 non-infected patients. During follow-up, 11 of 95 (11.6%) SARS-CoV-2-infected patients experienced disease recurrence compared to 21 of 190 (11.3%) in the control group (p = 0.894). Forty-six (48.4%) SARS-CoV-2-infected patients discontinued biological therapy versus seven (3.7%) in the control group (p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, biological agent discontinuation (p = 0.033) and ΔCRP (p = 0.017), but not SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.298), were associated with IBD recurrence. SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased IBD recurrence rates in this cohort of patients treated with biological agents.

Association Between the Clinical, Biochemical, and Endoscopic Activity of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Severity and Long-term Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Population-based Study

This brief report investigated the impact of clinical, biochemical, and endoscopic activity of IBD on the severity and long-term outcomes of COVID-19 in a prospective population-based cohort. The study did not identify any association between IBD activity and COVID-19 outcomes.

Nationwide COVID-19-EII Study: Incidence, Environmental Risk Factors and Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and COVID-19 of the ENEIDA Registry

We aim to describe the incidence and source of contagion of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, as well as the risk factors for a severe course and long-term sequelae. This is a prospective observational study of IBD and COVID-19 included in the ENEIDA registry (53,682 from 73 centres) between March-July 2020 followed-up for 12 months. Results were compared with data of the general population (National Centre of Epidemiology and Catalonia). A total of 482 patients with COVID-19 were identified. Twenty-eight percent were infected in the work environment, and 48% were infected by intrafamilial transmission, despite having good adherence to lockdown. Thirty-five percent required hospitalization, 7.9% had severe COVID-19 and 3.7% died. Similar data were reported in the general population (hospitalisation 19.5%, ICU 2.1% and mortality 4.6%). Factors related to death and severe COVID-19 were being aged ≥ 60 years (OR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.8-27 and 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3-15.9), while having ≥2 comorbidities increased mortality (OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3-11.6). None of the drugs for IBD were related to severe COVID-19. Immunosuppression was definitively stopped in 1% of patients at 12 months. The prognosis of COVID-19 in IBD, even in immunosuppressed patients, is similar to that in the general population. Thus, there is no need for more strict protection measures in IBD.