Effect of 2 vs 3 Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Population-based Propensity Matched Analysis

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Diagnostic Frequency and Medical Therapies Applied to Subjects With Functional Seizures

Background and Purposes

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with catastrophic consequences and increased psychological distress. However, it is unknown if the pandemic impacted the frequency of functional seizures (FS), a well known manifestation of psychiatric disease. The study objectives are to evaluate FS diagnostic code frequency before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and the therapies applied. We hypothesized that FS frequency would be higher during the pandemic, but that the therapies applied would be similar between the two time periods.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational cohort study utilizing the TriNetX ® electronic health record (EHR) database. We included subjects aged 8 to 65 years with a diagnostic code of "conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions." After the query, the study population was divided into 2 groups [pre-COVID-19 (3/1/2018 to 2/29/2020) and COVID-19 (3/1/2020 to 2/28/2022). We analyzed subject demographics, diagnostic, procedure, and medication codes.

Results

We included 8680 subjects [5029 (57.9%) pre-COVID-19 and 3651 (42.1%) COVID-19] in this study. There was a higher odds of mental health conditions, anxiolytic prescription, emergency department services, and hospital services, but a lower odds of critical care services during COVID-19. There was no difference in antiepileptic use between the time periods.

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a higher odds of anxiolytic use, need for emergency department services, and hospital services was reported. In addition, there was a decreased odds of critical care services. This may reflect a change in how patients with FS were managed during the pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Diseases-From Expectations to Reality

Viral infections have always been considered a threat to global health, with numerous outbreaks across time. Despite the relative recent experience with coronavirus-associated diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome-2's (SARS-CoV-2) continuous evolution displays a different behavior. With a tropism for both respiratory and digestive mucosa, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) seem to share a particular common background. Current literature offers evidence that viral alteration of the immune system, inflammatory intestinal tissue damage, increased intestinal permeability, incomplete viral clearance with viral antigen persistence, and intestinal dysbiosis, might explain SARS-CoV-2-IBD relationship in terms of etiopathogenesis and evolution. The hyperinflammatory state that both entities have in common explains the lack of success of current IBD therapy, raising the need for new personalized therapeutic options, with better outcomes for IBD and COVID-19 as well. This review aims to summarize the current available data on pediatric IBD evolution, management, and outcomes in the post-COVID period, with an emphasis on the particular aspects of the SARS-CoV-2-IBD relationship in children.

Design and analysis heterogeneity in observational studies of COVID-19 booster effectiveness: A review and case study

We investigated the design and analysis of observational booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies by performing a scoping review of booster VE literature with a focus on study design and analytic choices. We then applied 20 different approaches, including those found in the literature, to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine. We identified 80 studies in our review, including over 150 million observations in total. We found that while protection against infection is variable and dependent on several factors including the study population and time period, both monovalent boosters and particularly the bivalent booster offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. In addition, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. In terms of design choices, we found that test-negative designs and their variants may offer advantages in statistical efficiency compared to cohort designs.

Increased Risk of Herpes Zoster in Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease After SARS-CoV2 Infection: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that SARS-CoV2 infection can increase the risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in the general population. However, the risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not known.

METHODS

The TriNetX database was utilized to conduct a retrospective cohort study in patients with IBD after SARS-CoV2 infection and patients without a SARS-CoV2 infection (IBD control cohort). The primary outcome was to evaluate the risk of HZ between the 2 cohorts. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching was performed for demographic parameters, HZ risk factors and IBD medications between the 2 cohorts. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, patients with IBD with a SARS-CoV2 infection were at an increased risk for HZ (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.53-3.04) compared with IBD control cohort in the pre-COVID-19 vaccine era. There was no difference in the risk (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.44-1.75) of a composite outcome of HZ complications (hospitalization, post-herpetic neuralgia, and neurologic complications) between the 2 cohorts. The IBD SARS-CoV2 cohort was also at an increased risk for HZ (aOR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.48-6.24) compared with IBD control cohort in the postvaccine era. However, the risk of HZ in the postvaccine era was decreased (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76) compared with IBD SARS-CoV2 cohort in the prevaccine era.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that SARS-CoV2 infection is associated with an increased risk of HZ in patients with IBD.

Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study

Background

Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) are 2 fully human monoclonal antibodies that received emergency-use authorization on December 21, 2021, for pre-exposure prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients who are moderate-severely immunocompromised. The real-world efficacy of Evusheld in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is not known.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database in patients with IBD who received Evusheld compared to patients with IBD who did not receive Evusheld (12.1.2021-10.28.2022). The primary outcome was to assess the risk of COVID-19 within 6 months. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for demographic parameters, comorbid conditions, IBD medications, and history of COVID-19. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Four hundred and eight patients (0.19%) with IBD received Evusheld (mean age 58.6 ± 15.4 years old, female 47.7%) during the study period. After PSM, there was no difference in the risk (aOR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.33-2.35) of COVID-19 in the Evusheld cohort compared to the IBD control cohort. No patients required ICU care or intubation/respiratory support or were deceased in the Evusheld cohort.

Conclusions

Our study did not show that Evusheld decreases the risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD. Prevention of moderate-severe COVID-19 in these patients should focus on vaccination strategies and early COVID-19 therapies.

Design and Analysis Heterogeneity in Observational Studies of COVID-19 Booster Effectiveness: A Review and Case Study

Background

Observational vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies based on real-world data are a crucial supplement to initial randomized clinical trials of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, there exists substantial heterogeneity in study designs and statistical methods for estimating VE. The impact of such heterogeneity on VE estimates is not clear.

Methods

We conducted a two-step literature review of booster VE: a literature search for first or second monovalent boosters on January 1, 2023, and a rapid search for bivalent boosters on March 28, 2023. For each study identified, study design, methods, and VE estimates for infection, hospitalization, and/or death were extracted and summarized via forest plots. We then applied methods identified in the literature to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine (MM), providing a comparison of the impact of different statistical methodologies on the same dataset.

Results

We identified 53 studies estimating VE of the first booster, 16 for the second booster. Of these studies, 2 were case-control, 17 were test-negative, and 50 were cohort studies. Together, they included nearly 130 million people worldwide. VE for all outcomes was very high (around 90%) in earlier studies (i.e., in 2021), but became attenuated and more heterogeneous over time (around 40%-50% for infection, 60%-90% for hospitalization, and 50%-90% for death). VE compared to the previous dose was lower for the second booster (10-30% for infection, 30-60% against hospitalization, and 50-90% against death). We also identified 11 bivalent booster studies including over 20 million people. Early studies of the bivalent booster showed increased effectiveness compared to the monovalent booster (VE around 50-80% for hospitalization and death).Our primary analysis with MM data using a cohort design included 186,495 individuals overall (including 153,811 boosted and 32,684 with only a primary series vaccination), and a secondary test-negative design included 65,992 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2. When different statistical designs and methods were applied to MM data, VE estimates for hospitalization and death were robust to analytic choices, with test-negative designs leading to narrower confidence intervals. Adjusting either for the propensity of getting boosted or directly adjusting for covariates reduced the heterogeneity across VE estimates for the infection outcome.

Conclusion

While the advantage of the second monovalent booster is not obvious from the literature review, the first monovalent booster and the bivalent booster appear to offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. Based on both the literature view and data analysis, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. Test-negative designs can extend to severe disease outcomes and may offer advantages in statistical efficiency when used properly.