ArticleVaccine: X2023
Conception and reality: Outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination among Hungarian IBD patients on biologic treatments.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.