Background Emerging evidence suggests ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Detailed clinical analyses of multi-cultural hospitalized patient cohorts remain largely undescribed. Methods We performed regression, survival and cumulative competing risk analyses to evaluate factors associated with mortality in patients admitted for COVID-19 in three large London hospitals between February 25 and April 5, censored as of May 1, 2020. Results Of 614 patients (median age 69 years, (IQR 25) and 62% male), 381 (62%) had been discharged alive, 178 (29%) died and 55 (9%) remained hospitalized at censoring. Severe hypoxemia (aOR 4.25, 95%CI 2.36-7.64), leukocytosis (aOR 2.35, 95%CI 1.35-4.11), thrombocytopenia (aOR 1.01, 95%CI 1.00-1.01, increase per 10x9 decrease), severe renal impairment (aOR 5.14, 95%CI 2.65-9.97), and low albumin (aOR 1.06, 95%CI 1.02-1.09, increase per g decrease) were associated with death. Forty percent (244) were from black, Asian and other minority ethnic (BAME) groups, 38% (235) white and for 22% (135) ethnicity was unknown. BAME patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities. Whilst the unadjusted odds of death did not differ by ethnicity, when adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities, black patients were at higher odds of death compared to whites (aOR 1.69, 95%CI 1.00-2.86). This association was stronger when further adjusting for admission severity (aOR 1.85 95% CI 1.06-3.24). Conclusions BAME patients were over-represented in our cohort and, when accounting for demographic and clinical profile of admission, black patients were at increased odds of death. Further research is needed into biologic drivers of differences in COVID-19 outcomes by ethnicity.

Background & aims Although metabolic risk factors are associated with more severe COVID-19, there is little evidence on outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We here describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of NAFLD patients in a cohort hospitalised for COVID-19. Methods This study included all consecutive patients admitted for COVID-19 between February and April 2020 at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, with either imaging of the liver available dated within one year from the admission or a known diagnosis of NAFLD. Clinical data and early weaning score (EWS) were recorded. NAFLD diagnosis was based on imaging or past medical history and patients were stratified for Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index. Clinical endpoints were admission to intensive care unit (ICU)and in-hospital mortality. Results 561 patients were admitted. Overall, 193 patients were included in the study. Fifty nine patients (30%) died, 9 (5%) were still in hospital, and 125 (65%) were discharged. The NAFLD cohort (n = 61) was significantly younger (60 vs 70.5 years, p = 0.046) at presentation compared to the non-NAFLD (n = 132). NAFLD diagnosis was not associated with adverse outcomes. However, the NAFLD group had higher C reactive protein (CRP) (107 vs 91.2 mg/L, p = 0.05) compared to non-NAFLD(n = 132). Among NAFLD patients, male gender (p = 0.01), ferritin (p = 0.003) and EWS (p = 0.047) were associated with in-hospital mortality, while the presence of intermediate/high risk FIB-4 or liver cirrhosis was not.

Better diagnosing, through improved clinical coding and standardisation of diagnostic criteria, is required to more accurately assess the true burden and allow optimal management of IBS.

There is currently no gold standard test for the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Physicians must rely on a number of diagnostic tools including clinical and endoscopic evaluation as well as histologic, serologic and radiologic assessment. The real difficulty for physicians in both primary and secondary care is differentiating between patients suffering from functional symptoms and those with true underlying IBD. Alongside this, there is always concern regarding the possibility of a missed, or delayed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease. Even once the diagnosis of IBD has been made, there is often uncertainty in distinguishing between cases of UC or Crohn's. As a consequence, in cases of incorrect diagnosis, optimal treatment and management may be adversely affected. Endoscopic evaluation can be uncomfortable and inconvenient for patients. It carries significant risks including perforation and in terms of monetary cost, is expensive. The use of biomarkers to help in the diagnosis and differentiation of IBD has been increasing over time. However, there is not yet one biomarker, which is sensitive of specific enough to be used alone in diagnosing IBD. Current serum testing includes C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, which are cheap, reliable but non-specific and thus not ideal. Stool based testing such as faecal calprotectin is a much more specific tool and is currently in widespread clinical use. Non-invasive sampling is of the greatest clinical value and with the recent advances in metabolomics, genetics and proteomics, there are now more tools available to develop sensitive and specific biomarkers to diagnose and differentiate between IBD. Many of these new advances are only in early stages of development but show great promise for future clinical use.