| Literature DB >> 32628131 |
Meiping Yu1, Zhenghao Ye1, Yu Chen1, Tingting Qin2, Jiguang Kou3, De'an Tian1, Fang Xiao1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the disease conditions of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Hubei Province during the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by questionnaire online and guide their self-management during this epidemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; inflammatory bowel disease; questionnaire; self-management
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32628131 PMCID: PMC7377832 DOI: 10.18632/aging.103525
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Baseline characteristics of the study population. (n=102).
| Age, Median (min-max) (IQR), y | 34 (14-66) (27.25-42.25) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 34 (33.33%) |
| Male | 68 (66.67%) |
| Diagnosis | |
| Ulcerative Colitis | 56 (54.90%) |
| Crohn's Disease | 46 (45.10%) |
| Diagnosed with COVID-19 | 0 |
| Huanan seafood market exposure | 0 |
| Signs and symptoms of COVID-19 | 0 |
| Habitation* | |
| Wuhan | 26 (25.49%) |
| Xiaogan | 22(21.57%) |
| Jingzhou | 12 (11.76%) |
| Suizhou | 8 (7.83%) |
| Xiangyang | 6 (5.88%) |
| Huangshi | 6 (5.88%) |
| Huanggang | 5 (4.90%) |
| Yichang | 5 (4.90%) |
| Jingmen | 4 (3.92%) |
| Xianning | 2 (1.96%) |
| Xiantao | 2 (1.96%) |
| Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture | 2(1.96%) |
| Tianmen | 1 (0.98%) |
| Qianjiang | 1 (0.98%) |
*All participants are located in Hubei Province.
Evaluation of participants' IBD disease activity.
| Index, Median (IQR) (range) | 6-point Mayo,1(0-3)(0-6) | HBI, 2 (1-4) (0-12) | |
| Disease activity stage | 0.301 | ||
| Remission phase, n (%) | 38 (67.86%) | 37 (80.43%) | |
| Mild active phase, n (%) | 4 (7.14%) | 4 (8.70%) | |
| Moderate active phase, n (%) | 13 (23.21%) | 5 (10.87%) | |
| Severe active phase, n (%) | 1 (1.79%) | 0 (0%) |
HBI: Harvey-Bradshaw Index.
*Chi-square test was used to test whether there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of the disease activity between UC and CD patients.
Evaluation of participants' SIBDQ.
| SIBDQ, Median (IQR) | 59 (52.25-63) | 60 (54.75-64) | 58 (52-62.75) | |
| HRQoL | 0.338 | |||
| Good (≥ 501), n (%) | 87 (85.29%) | 49 (87.50%) | 38 (82.61%) | |
| Poor (<50), n (%) | 15 (14.71%) | 7 (15.50%) | 8 (17.39%) | |
HRQoL: health-related quality of life
1: SIBDQ score of more than 50 are considered to have a good HRQoL
*Chi-square test was used to test whether there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of HRQoL between UC and CD patients.
Multi-variable logistic regression of the causes of change in participants’ self-evaluation disease condition.
| Condition worsening (n=22) | Subsequent visit | |||
| No | 18 (81.82%) | 3.785(0.871, 16.458) | 0.076 | |
| Yes | 4 (18.18%) | |||
| Medication regimen | ||||
| Not changed | 14 (63.64%) | 0.264 (0.060, 1.167) | 0.079 | |
| Changed | 8 (36.36%) | |||
| Emotional status | ||||
| Negative | 4 (18.18%) | 3.306(0.413, 26.454) | 0.260 | |
| Positive | 3 (13.64%) | 0.830 (0.178, 3.880) | 0.813 | |
| Normal | 15 (68.18%) | |||
| Physical exercise | ||||
| Reduced | 5 (22.73%) | 17.593 (2.035, 152.097) | 0.009 | |
| Not reduced | 17 (77.27%) | |||
| Rest | ||||
| Inadequate | 21 (95.45%) | 1.071 (0.262, 4.378) | 0.924 | |
| Adequate | 1 (4.55%) | |||
| Smoking | ||||
| No | 19 (86.36%) | 0.665 (0.123, 3.591) | 0.636 | |
| Yes | 3 (13.64%) | |||
| Condition improved (n=25) | Subsequent visit | |||
| No | 21 (84.00%) | 2.730 (0.731, 10.199) | 0.135 | |
| Yes | 4 (16.00%) | |||
| Medication regimen | ||||
| Not changed | 19 (76.00%) | 0.374 (0.094, 1.496) | 0.165 | |
| Changed | 6 (24.00%) | |||
| Emotional status | ||||
| Negative | 1 (4.00%) | 2.094 (0.138, 31.710) | 0.594 | |
| Positive | 14 (56.00%) | 2.259 (0.751, 6.792) | 0.147 | |
| Normal | 10 (40.00%) | |||
| Physical exercise | ||||
| Reduced | 1 (4.00%) | 0.694 (0.222, 2.167) | 0.529 | |
| Not reduced | 24 (96.00%) | |||
| Rest | ||||
| 9 (36.00%) | 0.136 (0.015, 1.249) | 0.078 | ||
| Adequate | 16 (64.00%) | |||
| Smoking | ||||
| Yes | 4 (15.38%) | 0.481 (0.104, 2.228) | 0.350 | |
| No | 22 (84.62%) | |||
*The category with no change in the condition (n=55) was used as the reference category for the two groups of condition worsening (n=22) and condition improved (n=25).
The comparison of the medication regimens before and after the outbreak of COVID-19 and the changes in medication regimens.
| No medication | 1 (1.75%) | 4 (5.26%) | +3 | |
| Mesalazine | 50 (89.47%) | 47 (85.96%) | -3 | |
| Enteral nutrition | 1 (1.75%) | 1 (1.75%) | 0 | |
| UC patients, (n=56) | Glucocorticoid | 2 (3.51%) | 2 (3.51%) | 0 |
| Probiotics | 4 (5.26%) | 4 (5.26%) | 0 | |
| Biological therapy | ||||
| Remicade | 3 (5.26%) | 3 (5.26%) | 0 | |
| Adalimumab | 1 (1.75%) | 1 (1.75%) | 0 | |
| No medication | 1 (1.92%) | 3 (5.77%) | +2 | |
| Mesalazine | 8 (17.31%) | 8 (17.31%) | 0 | |
| Enteral nutrition | 10 (19.23%) | 10 (21.15%) | 0 | |
| Glucocorticoid | 2 (3.85%) | 2 (3.85%) | 0 | |
| Probiotics | 1 (1.92%) | 1 (1.92%) | 0 | |
| CD patients, (n=46) | Biological therapy | |||
| Remicade | 21 (46.15%) | 16 (36.54%) | -5 | |
| Adalimumab | 1 (1.92%) | 2 (3.85%) | +1 | |
| Immunomodulators | ||||
| Methotrexate | 2 (3.85%) | 1 (1.92%) | -1 | |
| Azathioprine | 20 (40.38%) | 20 (40.38%) | 0 | |
| Thalidomide | 1 (1.92%) | 1 (1.92%) | 0 |
*Plus sign indicates an increase in quantity and minus sign indicates a decrease in quantity.