Search

Background: In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination has been effective in preventing COVID-19 infections and related mortality. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was also recommended by the international society for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, IBD patients were not recruited in prospective randomized clinical vaccine studies. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in IBD patients, we conducted this systemic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1, 2019, and September 9, 2021. Studies written in English reported the efficacy, seroconversion (anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (S) antibody titer beyond the threshold) rate, and adverse events after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in IBD patients. We extracted the author, date, study design, country, types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, number of IBD patients receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, and study outcomes. Published data from the enrolled studies were pooled to determine effect estimates. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021264993). Results: We analyzed findings from 27 454 IBD patients who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination COVID-19 infection rate was comparable between the IBD patients and non-IBD patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.28 [95% CI, 0.96-1.71]) and higher in nonvaccinated IBD patients compared with vaccinated IBD patients (OR, 8.63 [95% CI, 5.44-13.37]). The adverse event rate, severe adverse events, and mortality after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were 69%, 3%, and 0%, respectively. Conclusion: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is effective and tolerated in preventing COVID-19 infections in IBD patients. Over 98% of patients had seroconversion after receiving all doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the influence of biologics on vaccination was limited. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is recommended for IBD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the growth of the aging population, the need for colonoscopies in nonagenarians is rising. However, few data on colonoscopies in extremely elderly individuals are available. To better acknowledge the role of colonoscopies in this specific group of patients, we conducted this study to evaluate the safety and clinical impact of colonoscopy in nonagenarian patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing nonagenarians who received colonoscopy in a tertiary medical center in Taiwan in 2016 with 76- to 80-year-old patients (relatively elderly patients) who were 1:1 propensity score matched by sex as the control subjects. The postcolonoscopy 30-day adverse events, mortality, and long-term survival were recorded. Results: A total of 137 nonagenarians and 137 relatively elderly patients were included. The nonagenarians receiving colonoscopy were more likely to be hospitalized (40.1% vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and the adjusted colonoscopy completion rates were comparable in both groups (92.0% vs 97.1%, p = 0.063). The overall adverse event rate and postcolonoscopy 30-day mortality rates were low in both groups (2.9% vs 1.5%, p = 0.409 and 2.2% vs 1.5%, p = 0.652, respectively). A total of 18.2% of the nonagenarians were diagnosed with advanced neoplasia. Among the nonagenarians diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the patients receiving surgery had a significantly lower risk of death than the patients receiving conservative management (hazards ratio 0.1044, 0.01275-0.8529, p = 0.0352). Conclusion: Colonoscopy in patients older than 90 years is generally safe. Colonoscopy findings that led to surgery in nonagenarians diagnosed with colorectal cancer were associated with survival benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older adults with depression more frequently experience somatic and gastrointestinal (GI) problems compared with people without depression and younger adults with depression. However, whether GI symptoms are predictive of elevated rates of depression among older adults is unclear. Methods: We enrolled 106 older adults (>60 years old); 69 had late-life depression (LLD), and 37 were controls. All participants gave ratings on the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Food consumption was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire, and a Mediterranean diet score was used as a covariate. Results: Compared with the controls, patients with LLD reported higher levels of depressive and GI symptoms and reported more reflux, abdominal pain, and dyspepsia symptoms, and these symptoms were correlated with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (GSRS total: β = 0.47; reflux: β = 1.47; abdominal pain: β = 1.98; dyspepsia: β = 1.02; all p < 0.01). After demographic variables and Mediterranean diet score were controlled for, a logistic regression analysis indicated that total GSRS score was an independent determinant of LLD (odds ratio: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.38). Moreover, a stratified analysis by depression severity indicated that higher total GSRS score may contribute to greater depression severity (odds ratio: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.52). Conclusion: We provide evidence that GI symptoms are associated with depressive symptoms among patients with LLD. Older people with more specific GI symptoms, such as reflux, abdominal pain, and dyspepsia, are potentially at greater risk of having LLD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]