3 research outputs found

    Breastfeeding Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in North America: A Multisite Study

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: In North American countries, national guidelines have strongly recommended formula over breastmilk for people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because of concern for HIV transmission. However, data from resource-limited settings suggest the risk is \u3c1% among virally suppressed people. Information regarding breastfeeding experience in high-resource settings is lacking. METHODS: A retrospective multisite study was performed for individuals with HIV who breastfed during 2014-2022 in the United States (8 sites) and Canada (3 sites). Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Among the 72 cases reported, most had been diagnosed with HIV and were on antiretroviral therapy prior to the index pregnancy and had undetectable viral loads at delivery. Most commonly reported reasons for choosing to breastfeed were health benefits, community expectations, and parent-child bonding. Median duration of breastfeeding was 24 weeks (range, 1 day to 72 weeks). Regimens for infant prophylaxis and protocols for testing of infants and birthing parents varied widely among institutions. No neonatal transmissions occurred among the 94% of infants for whom results were available ≥6 weeks after weaning. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the largest cohort to date of people with HIV who breastfed in North America. Findings demonstrate high variability among institutions in policies, infant prophylaxis, and infant and parental testing practices. The study describes challenges in weighing the potential risks of transmission with personal and community factors. Finally, this study highlights the relatively small numbers of patients with HIV who chose to breastfeed at any 1 location, and the need for further multisite studies to identify best care practices

    Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study

    No full text
    BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsThe PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FindingsWe included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes
    corecore