Search

The impact of COVID-19 on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients under pharmacological immunosuppression is still not clearly understood. We investigated the incidence of COVID-19 and the impact of immunosuppression and containment measures on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large IBD cohort, from a multicenter cohort from 21st of February to 30th of June, 2020. Ninety-seven patients with IBD (43 UC, 53 CD, one unclassified IBD) and concomitant COVID-19 over a total of 23,879 patients with IBD were enrolled in the study. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IBD vs. the general population was 0.406% and 0.402% cases, respectively. Twenty-three patients (24%) were hospitalized, 21 (22%) had pneumonia, four (4%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, and one patient died. Lethality in our cohort was 1% compared to 9% in the general population. At multivariable analysis, age > 65 years was associated with increased risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 11.6, 95% CI 2.18-62.60; OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.10-23.86, respectively), treatment with corticosteroids increased the risk of hospitalization (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.48-40.05), whereas monoclonal antibodies were associated with reduced risk of pneumonia and hospitalization (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04-0.52; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.10-0.90, respectively). The risk of COVID-19 in patients with IBD is similar to the general population. National lockdown was effective in preventing infection in our cohort. Advanced age and treatment with corticosteroids impacted negatively on the outcome of COVID-19, whereas monoclonal antibodies did not seem to have a detrimental effect.

Background: Among the various methods of combined endoscopic therapy for high-risk bleeding peptic ulcers the use of adrenaline followed by injection of ethanolamine is minimally demanding in terms of the endoscopic skills and instrumentation but has not been adequately studied. The aim of the present study is to determine whether the injection of ethanolamine in combination with epinephrine compared to injection of epinephrine alone reduces rebleeding rates, need for surgery and overall mortality of patients with bleeding ulcers., Methods: Patients with ulcers and endoscopic features indicative of a high risk for spontaneous recurrent bleeding were included. High risk was defined by the Forrest classification. Patients were assigned to injection of epinephrine alone (n = 284) or epinephrine plus ethanolamine (n = 131)., Results: Initial hemostasis was achieved in 96% of patients in both groups. We detected significant difference in rates of recurrent bleeding, 16.4% vs. 8.7%, for epinephrine and epinephrine plus ethanolamine respectively (P<0.05). When patients were stratified according to Forrest criteria, no significant difference could be found, although there was a trend towards less recurrent bleeding in the case of dual injection therapy in all patient subgroups. There was no significant difference in the proportions of patients who required surgery, 7.7% vs. 7.6% respectively. Mortality was equal (3.2 vs. 3.1%) in the two groups. No major complications from endoscopic treatment were observed in either group., Conclusion: Adding ethanolamine to epinephrine for injection treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers decreases bleeding recurrence rates and represents a safe endoscopic treatment for high-risk bleeding ulcers.