Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36573242›Full record

ArticleVaccine: X2023

Conception and reality: Outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination among Hungarian IBD patients on biologic treatments.

Tamás Resál, Mária Matuz, Csilla Keresztes, Péter Bacsur, Kata Szántó, Anett Sánta, Mariann Rutka, Diána Kolarovszki-Erdei, Renata Bor, Anna Fábián and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Tamás ResálGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Mária MatuzDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Csilla KeresztesDepartment for Medical Communication and Translation Studies, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Péter BacsurGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Kata SzántóGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Anett SántaGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Mariann RutkaGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Diána Kolarovszki-ErdeiGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Renata BorGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Anna FábiánGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Zoltán SzepesGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Pál MihellerDepartment of Surgery and Interventional Gastroenterology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Patrícia SarlósGastroenterology Unit, 1st Department of Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Anita ZacháryHungarian Crohn's and Colitis Association, Budapest, Hungary.
Klaudia FarkasGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Tamás MolnárGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease potentially elevates the risk of infections, independently from age, while the disease activity and medical treatment(s) can also increase the risks. Nevertheless, it is necessary to clarify these preconceptions as well during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An observational, questionnaire based study was conducted in Hungary between February and August 2021. 2 questionnaires were completed. The first questionnaire surveyed the impact of the pandemic on patients with biologic treatments and assessed the severity and outcome of the infection, whereas the second one assessed vaccination rate and adverse events. Results: 472 patients participated in the study. 16.9 % of them acquired the infection and 6.3 % needed hospitalization. None of them required ICU care. Male sex elevated the risk of infection (p = 0.008), while glove (p = 0.02) and mask wearing (p = 0.005) was the most effective prevention strategy. Nevertheless, abstaining from community visits or workplace did not have an impact on the infection rate. Smoking, age, and disease type did not elevate the risk. UC patients had poorer condition during the infection (p = 0.003); furthermore, the disease activity could potentially worsen the course of infection (p = 0.072). The different biological treatments were equally safe; no difference was observed in the infection rate, course of COVID-19. Azathioprine and corticosteroids did not elevate the infection rate. 28 patients (35.0 %) suspended the ongoing biologic treatment, but it had no impact on the disease course. However, it resulted in changing the current treatment (p = 0.004). 9.8 % of the respondents were sceptic about being vaccinated, and 90 % got vaccinated. In one case, a serious flare-up occurred. Discussion: Most patients acquired the infection at workplace. Biologic therapies had no effect on the COVID-19 infection, whereas male sex, an active disease, and UC could be larger threat than treatments. Vaccination was proved to be safe, and patient education is important to achieve mass vaccination of the population.

Indexed as

Biologic treatmentInflammatory bowel diseasePandemicSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36573242
PMCPMC9773695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.