Background/Aims: Response to vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is lower than in the general population. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) versus controls. Methods: We prospectively compared antibody response to HBV vaccination in 100 patients with UC versus controls. HBV vaccination was given to all the cases and controls at 0, 1 and 6 months. Anti-hepatitis B surface (anti-HBs) titers were then measured 4 weeks after the first and the third dose. Adequate immune response (AIR) was considered if the anti-HBs titer was >10 IU/L and effective immune response (EIR) if the anti-HBs titer was >100 IU/L. Results: Median anti-HBs titer was lower in patients with UC than controls (67 IU/L vs. 105 IU/L, P<0.01). AIR and EIR were significantly lower in patients than in controls (82% vs. 96%, P=0.001; 41% vs. 66%, P<0.001, respectively). Univariate analysis showed that age <30 years, mild to moderate severity of disease, disease duration <5 years, male sex, post first dose anti-HBs titer >2 IU/L and non-exposure to corticosteroids, azathioprine and biologicals were predictors of AIR in patients with UC (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that only non-exposure to corticosteroids, azathioprine and biologicals, male sex, and disease duration <5 years were independent predictors of AIR. Conclusions Response rate to the HBV vaccination in patients with UC was significantly lower as compared to the controls. Male sex, shorter disease duration, and non-exposure to immunomodulators were independent predictors of AIR.

Background/Aims: Although peritoneal tuberculosis (TB) is one of the important differential diagnoses among cirrhotic patients with ascites, a peritoneal biopsy is not always available. High ascitic fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA) has been indicative of peritoneal TB. On the other hand, studies to assess its diagnostic utility based on the confirmation of peritoneal biopsy in cirrhotic patients are scarce. Methods: Patients with new-onset ascites were enrolled prospectively from a tertiary hospital. Peritoneal biopsy was applied according to clinical judgment when required. Based on pathology diagnosis of the peritoneum, the diagnostic efficacy of ascitic fluid ADA for peritoneal TB was evaluated in total and cirrhotic patients, respectively. Results: Among 286 patients enrolled, 78 were diagnosed with peritoneal TB. One hundred and thirty-two patients had cirrhosis, and 30 of those were diagnosed with peritoneal TB. The mean ADA was 72.2 U/L and 22.7 U/L in the peritoneal and non-peritoneal TB group, respectively, among the total study population, and 64.0 U/L and 19.1 U/L in the peritoneal and non-peritoneal TB group, respectively, among the subgroup with cirrhosis. The area under the curve for ADA to diagnose peritoneal TB was 0.96 in the total study population with a cutoff value of 41.1 U/L, and 0.93 in cirrhotic patients with a cutoff value of 39.9 U/L. Conclusions The ascitic fluid ADA measurements showed high diagnostic performance for peritoneal tuberculosis in patients with ascites regardless of cirrhosis at a similar cutoff value.

Background/Aims: Although peritoneal tuberculosis (TB) is one of the important differential diagnoses among cirrhotic patients with ascites, a peritoneal biopsy is not always available. High ascitic fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA) has been indicative of peritoneal TB. On the other hand, studies to assess its diagnostic utility based on the confirmation of peritoneal biopsy in cirrhotic patients are scarce. Methods: Patients with new-onset ascites were enrolled prospectively from a tertiary hospital. Peritoneal biopsy was applied according to clinical judgment when required. Based on pathology diagnosis of the peritoneum, the diagnostic efficacy of ascitic fluid ADA for peritoneal TB was evaluated in total and cirrhotic patients, respectively. Results: Among 286 patients enrolled, 78 were diagnosed with peritoneal TB. One hundred and thirty-two patients had cirrhosis, and 30 of those were diagnosed with peritoneal TB. The mean ADA was 72.2 U/L and 22.7 U/L in the peritoneal and non-peritoneal TB group, respectively, among the total study population, and 64.0 U/L and 19.1 U/L in the peritoneal and non-peritoneal TB group, respectively, among the subgroup with cirrhosis. The area under the curve for ADA to diagnose peritoneal TB was 0.96 in the total study population with a cutoff value of 41.1 U/L, and 0.93 in cirrhotic patients with a cutoff value of 39.9 U/L. Conclusions The ascitic fluid ADA measurements showed high diagnostic performance for peritoneal tuberculosis in patients with ascites regardless of cirrhosis at a similar cutoff value.

Background/Aims: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has affected the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units globally owing to the risk of transmission. We present our data on the use of rapid antigen test (RAT) as a screening tool prior to endoscopy to prevent the transmission of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent any GI endoscopic procedure from July 2020 to October 2020 at a tertiary referral center in New Delhi, India. All patients underwent screening for COVID-19 using RAT, and endoscopy was performed only when the RAT was negative. The data are presented as numbers and percentages. Results: A total of 3,002 endoscopic procedures were performed during the study period. Only one endoscopic procedure was performed in a COVID-19 positive patient. A total of 53 healthcare workers were involved in conducting these procedures. Only 2 healthcare workers (3.8%) were diagnosed COVID-19 positive, presumably due to community-acquired infection, during this period. Conclusions The COVID-19 RAT is easily usable as a simple screening tool prior to GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background/Aims: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has affected the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units globally owing to the risk of transmission. We present our data on the use of rapid antigen test (RAT) as a screening tool prior to endoscopy to prevent the transmission of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent any GI endoscopic procedure from July 2020 to October 2020 at a tertiary referral center in New Delhi, India. All patients underwent screening for COVID-19 using RAT, and endoscopy was performed only when the RAT was negative. The data are presented as numbers and percentages. Results: A total of 3,002 endoscopic procedures were performed during the study period. Only one endoscopic procedure was performed in a COVID-19 positive patient. A total of 53 healthcare workers were involved in conducting these procedures. Only 2 healthcare workers (3.8%) were diagnosed COVID-19 positive, presumably due to community-acquired infection, during this period. Conclusions The COVID-19 RAT is easily usable as a simple screening tool prior to GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.