BACKGROUND & AIM: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), specifically those treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)a biologics, are at high risk for vaccine-preventable infections. Their ability to mount adequate vaccine responses is unclear. The aim of the study was to assess serologic responses to messenger RNA-Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine, and safety profile, in patients with IBD stratified according to therapy, compared with healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: Prospective, controlled, multicenter Israeli study. Subjects enrolled received 2 BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) doses. Anti-Gastroenterology 2021;-:1-14 CLINICAL ATspike antibody levels and functional activity, anti-TNFa levels and adverse events (AEs) were detected longitudinally. RE-SULTS: Overall, 258 subjects: 185 IBD (67 treated with anti-TNFa, 118 non-anti-TNFa), and 73 HCs. After the first vaccine dose, all HCs were seropositive, whereas w7% of patients with IBD, regardless of treatment, remained seronegative. After the second dose, all subjects were seropositive, however anti-spike levels were significantly lower in anti-TNFa treated compared with non-anti-TNFa treated patients, and HCs (both P < .001). Neutralizing and inhibitory functions were both lower in anti-TNFa treated compared with non-anti-TNFa treated patients, and HCs (P < .03; P < .0001, respectively). Anti-TNFa drug levels and vaccine responses did not affect anti-spike levels. Infection rate (w2%) and AEs were comparable in all groups. IBD activity was unaffected by BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study in patients with IBD stratified according to treatment, all patients mounted serologic response to 2 doses of BNT162b2; however, its magnitude was significantly lower in patients treated with anti-TNFa, regardless of administration timing and drug levels. Vaccine was safe. As vaccine serologic response longevity in this group may be limited, vaccine booster dose should be considered.
Background: Inadequate bowel preparation is still the main obstacle to a complete colonoscopy in many patients and necessitates many repeated procedures. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and to better characterize these patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study that reviewed electronic reports of colonoscopy procedures over a 10-year period. Patients were divided into 2 groups: adequate vs. non-adequate bowel preparation. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation, including age, sex, setting (inpatient/outpatient), preparation regimen and procedures’ indications. We examined the effect of inadequate preparation on colonoscopy quality indicators. Results: Of the 28,725 patients included in the study, 6,702 (23.3%) had inadequate bowel preparation. In the multivariate analysis, advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 1.015, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.013-1.017; P<0.01), male sex (OR 1.353, 95%CI 1.286-1.423; P<0.01) and a minority population (OR 1.635, 95%CI 1.531-1.746; P<0.01) were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation. The inpatient setting was among the most prominent factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation (OR 2.018, 95%CI 1.884-2.163; P<0.01). Adequate bowel preparation was associated with a higher polyp detection rate (26.8% vs. 23.6%; OR 1.22, 95%CI 1.109-1.347; P<0.01) and colorectal cancer (2.8% vs. 2.4%; OR 1.402, 95%CI 1.146-1.716; P<0.01), and higher frequencies of cecal (96.4% vs. 73.5%; OR 2.243, 95%CI 2.095-2.403; P<0.01) and terminal ileum intubation (8.1% vs. 5.4%; OR 1.243, 95%CI 1.088-1.434; P<0.01). Conclusion: We outlined various factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and confirmed its adverse effect on colonoscopy quality indicators.
Background: Propofol-mediated sedation is safe and clearly associated with increased patient satisfaction. However, whether it results in a favorable effect on colonoscopy outcomes and performance compared to standard sedation with benzodiazepines/opiates remains unclear. Objectives: To determine the effect of propofol-mediated sedation on colonoscopy-quality measures compared to traditional sedation. Methods: A large cohort of 44,794 patients who had undergone sedated colonoscopies were included. Colonoscopy-quality indicators were examined in benzodiazepine/opiate-sedated patients and compared with a propofol-mediated sedation group. Adjustment for potential confounders, such as age, sex, quality of bowel preparation, procedural setting, and indication was performed. Results: Patients who received propofol-mediated sedation were more likely, and in a dosedependent manner, to have an enhanced polyp-detection rate (22.8% vs 20.9%, P<0.001), cecal intubation rate (90.4% vs 87.3%, P<0.001), and terminal ileum-intubation rate (6.4% vs 1.6%, P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, these findings were maintained, as propofol-mediated sedation use was significantly associated with improved colonoscopy indicators. Conclusion: Propofol-mediated sedation during colonoscopy is associated with better examination performance and improved outcomes. Further prospective or randomized trials to support these findings are warranted.
Background Propofol-mediated sedation is safe and clearly associated with increased patient satisfaction. However, whether it results in a favorable effect on colonoscopy outcomes and performance compared to standard sedation with benzodiazepines/opiates remains unclear. Objectives To determine the effect of propofol-mediated sedation on colonoscopy-quality measures compared to traditional sedation. Methods A large cohort of 44,794 patients who had undergone sedated colonoscopies were included. Colonoscopy-quality indicators were examined in benzodiazepine/opiate-sedated patients and compared with a propofol-mediated sedation group. Adjustment for potential confounders, such as age, sex, quality of bowel preparation, procedural setting, and indication was performed. Results Patients who received propofol-mediated sedation were more likely, and in a dose-dependent manner, to have an enhanced polyp-detection rate (22.8% vs 20.9%, P <0.001), cecal intubation rate (90.4% vs 87.3%, P <0.001), and terminal ileum-intubation rate (6.4% vs 1.6%, P <0.001). On multivariate analysis, these findings were maintained, as propofol-mediated sedation use was significantly associated with improved colonoscopy indicators. Conclusion Propofol-mediated sedation during colonoscopy is associated with better examination performance and improved outcomes. Further prospective or randomized trials to support these findings are warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.