Background: Data regarding outcome of Coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) are lacking.
Patients and methods:We performed a retrospective study on AIH patients with COVID-19 from 34 centres in Europe and the Americas. We analyzed factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes defined as the need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care admission, and/or death. The outcomes of patients with AIH were compared to a propensity-score matched cohort of non-AIH patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD) and COVID-19. The frequency and clinical significance of new-onset liver injury (alanine aminotransferase>2xupper limit of normal) during COVID-19 was also evaluated.
Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved Results: We included 110 AIH patients (80%,female) with a median age of 49 (range:18-85) years at COVID-19 diagnosis. New-onset liver injury was observed in 37.1% (33/89) of the patients. Use of antivirals was associated with liver injury (p=0.041; odds ratio (OR) 3.36[1.05-10.78]) while continued immunosuppression during COVID-19 was associated with a lower rate of liver injury (p=0.009; OR 0.26[0.09-0.71]). The rates of severe ) and allcause mortality (10% vs 11.5%; p=0.852) were not different between AIH and non-AIH CLD.Cirrhosis was an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 in patients with AIH (p<0.001;). Continuation of immunosuppression or presence of liver injury during COVID-19 was not associated with severe COVID-19.Conclusions: This international, multi-center study reveals that patients with AIH were not at risk for worse outcomes with COVID-19 than other causes of CLD. Cirrhosis was the strongest predictor for severe COVID-19 in AIH patients. Maintenance of immunosuppression during COVID-19 was not associated with increased risk for severe COVID-19, but did lower the risk for new-onset liver injury during COVID-19.
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of telehealth in the management of patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). The COVID-19 outbreak during the study period provided an opportunity to evaluate any pandemic influence on how telehealth was perceived by patients and physicians. Methods: We included patients with AIH who were followed in the Harran University hospital, Turkey. Patients were managed by either remote telehealth or standard care. Results: A total of 46 (telehealth, n=19 and standard care, n= 27) patients (40 female) with a median age of 32 (range 17-74) years at diagnosis were included in the study. Until the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rates of biochemical remission and relapse after remission were similar in the telehealth and standard care groups (89.5% vs. 89.1% and 15.8% vs. 25.9%, p=ns, for both). The telehealth group maintained remission significantly better than the standard care group (100% vs. 77.3%, p=0.035) during the COVID-19 period. All relapses were due to non-adherence to therapy. Psychiatric problems, pregnancy-related issues and drug side-effects could all be managed remotely by telehealth. Conclusions: In this study, we show for the first time that telehealth is a feasible alternative for managing AIH, both under normal circumstances and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expert opinion: Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) requires long-life lifelong immunosuppression and followup for most patients. The use of telehealth may be an alternative way to evaluate these patients remotely. We show for the first time that telehealth is effective and useful in the management of AIH in regular time as well during COVID-19. We hope that our study can extend use of telehealth in the evaluation of patients with other causes of chronic liver disease.
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.