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.

No abstract

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.