Viral hepatitis prevalence in patients with active and latent tuberculosis

AIM: To assess the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and association with drug induced liver injury (DILI) in patients undergoing anti-tuberculosis (TB) therapy. METHODS: Four hundred and twenty nine patients with newly diagnosed TB - either active disease or latent infection - who were due to commence anti-TB therapy between September 2008 and May 2011 were included. These patients were prospectively tested for serological markers of HBV, HCV and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections - hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg), hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B e antigen, IgG and IgM antibody to HBcAg (anti-HBc), HCV IgG antibody and HIV antibody using a combination of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, Western blot assay and polymerase chain reaction techniques. Patients were reviewed at least monthly during the TB treatment initiation phase. Liver function tests were measured prior to commencement of anti-TB therapy and 2-4 wk later. Liver function tests were also performed at any time the patient had significant nausea, vomiting, rash, or felt non-specifically unwell. Fisher’s exact test was used to measure significance in comparisons of proportions between groups. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 429 patients, 270 (62.9%) had active TB disease and 159 (37.1%) had latent TB infection. 61 (14.2%) patients had isolated anti-HBc positivity, 11 (2.6%) were also HBsAg positive and 7 (1.6%) were HCV-antibody positive. 16/270 patients with active TB disease compared to 2/159 patients with latent TB infection had markers of chronic viral hepatitis (HBsAg or HCV antibody positive; P = 0.023). Similarly the proportion of HBsAg positive patients were significantly greater in the active vs latent TB infection group (10/43 vs 1/29, P = 0.04). The prevalence of chronic HBV or HCV was significantly higher than the estimated United Kingdom prevalence of 0.3% for each. We found no association between DILI and presence of serological markers of HBV or HCV. Three (5.3%) patients with serological markers of HBV or HCV infection had DILI compared to 25 (9.5%) patients without; P = 0.04. CONCLUSION: Viral hepatitis screening should be considered in TB patients. DILI risk was not increased in patients with HBV/HCV

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

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