Abstract:increased risk of opportunistic infections, in particular of viral or bacterial etiology. Despite the existence of international guidelines, many gastroenterologists have not adopted routine screening and vaccination in those patients with IBD, which are candidate for biologic therapy. Available strategies to screen, diagnose and prevent bacterial and viral infections in patients with IBD prior to start biological therapy are discussed in this review. Core tip: The increasing use of biologics as a mainstay of … Show more
“…It is essential that gastroenterologists involved in IBD care execute a vigilant investigation for infectious disease before starting immunomodulation. Vigilant screening allows the physician to avoid having to stop a biological medication because of the presence of infections with the risk of recurrence of the underlying disease [11] (Table 3).…”
Section: Definition Of Immunocompromised In Ibdmentioning
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are susceptible to varieties of opportunistic infections due to immunological changes in the setting of their disease and drug-induced immunosuppression. Even though numerous infections can be prevented by vaccine, vaccination in IBD patients is inadequate. Data showed only 9% were vaccinated against pneumococcal infection and 28% described commonly receiving influenza vaccine. This review article discusses the recent immunizations against influenza virus; pneumococcal infection; human papilloma virus; tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis; measles, mumps and rubella; varicella zoster; and herpes zoster for individuals diagnosed with IBD and those patients with drug-related immunosuppression. In addition, this review discusses concerns about IBD patients planning to travel abroad. Immunization status and screening for opportunistic infection need to be addressed in IBD patients at the time of diagnosis and they should be vaccinated accordingly. Generally, standard vaccination strategies should be pursued in IBD patients, although live vaccines should be avoided while they are not immunocompetent.
“…It is essential that gastroenterologists involved in IBD care execute a vigilant investigation for infectious disease before starting immunomodulation. Vigilant screening allows the physician to avoid having to stop a biological medication because of the presence of infections with the risk of recurrence of the underlying disease [11] (Table 3).…”
Section: Definition Of Immunocompromised In Ibdmentioning
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are susceptible to varieties of opportunistic infections due to immunological changes in the setting of their disease and drug-induced immunosuppression. Even though numerous infections can be prevented by vaccine, vaccination in IBD patients is inadequate. Data showed only 9% were vaccinated against pneumococcal infection and 28% described commonly receiving influenza vaccine. This review article discusses the recent immunizations against influenza virus; pneumococcal infection; human papilloma virus; tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis; measles, mumps and rubella; varicella zoster; and herpes zoster for individuals diagnosed with IBD and those patients with drug-related immunosuppression. In addition, this review discusses concerns about IBD patients planning to travel abroad. Immunization status and screening for opportunistic infection need to be addressed in IBD patients at the time of diagnosis and they should be vaccinated accordingly. Generally, standard vaccination strategies should be pursued in IBD patients, although live vaccines should be avoided while they are not immunocompetent.
“…Additionally, delays in performing required infection screening tests can delay biologic therapy initiation [ 16 ]. Prior to initiation of biologics, patients should be screened for latent tuberculosis (TB) and hepatitis B infection [ 21 ]. The need for this routine testing in the inpatient setting has been shown to be associated with longer LOS [ 17 ].…”
Background
Reducing hospitalization length of stay (LOS) for acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) will reduce healthcare costs, mitigate hospitalization-associated risks (e.g., venous thromboembolism), and improve quality of life.
Methods
A chart review was performed of all adult ASUC-related hospitalizations at University of California, San Francisco, from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with LOS < 7 days versus ≥ 7 days. A subgroup analysis was performed excluding patients who underwent colectomy during hospitalization.
Results
A total of 95 ASUC-related hospitalizations were identified. The initial univariable analysis identified the following factors associated with LOS ≥ 7 days (
P
< 0.05): higher maximum heart rate in the first 24 h, higher C-reactive protein, being biologic therapy naïve, and a later hospital day of biologic therapy initiation. On mixed model multivariable analysis, later hospital day of biologic initiation was associated with increased LOS ≥ 7 days (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.2–7.56,
p
= 0.012).
Conclusions
We identified multiple predictors for longer hospital LOS, including factors related to disease severity (non-modifiable) and treatment (potentially modifiable). Importantly, this study identified biologic naïve treatment status and delayed inpatient biologic therapy initiation as predictors of longer LOS (≥ 7 days) in patients who did not ultimately require colectomy during their hospital stay. Potentially modifiable strategies to reduce LOS may include early communication and patient education about biologic therapy in both the inpatient and outpatient setting.
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.