RESUMO
Abstract Objective: To provide guidelines on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) to rheumatologists considering specific scenarios of the daily practice based on the shared-making decision (SMD) process. Methods: A task force was constituted by 24 rheumatologists (panel members), with clinical and research expertise in immunizations and infectious diseases in immunocompromised patients, endorsed by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR), to develop guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMRD. A consensus was built through the Delphi method and involved four rounds of anonymous voting, where five options were used to determine the level of agreement (LOA), based on the Likert Scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree (neutral); (4) agree; and (5) strongly agree. Nineteen questions were addressed and discussed via teleconference to formulate the answers. In order to identify the relevant data on COVID-19 vaccines, a search with standardized descriptors and synonyms was performed on September 10th, 2021, of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS to identify studies of interest. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of nonrandomized studies. Results: All the nineteen questions-answers (Q&A) were approved by the BSR Task Force with more than 80% of panelists voting options 4—agree—and 5—strongly agree—, and a consensus was reached. These Guidelines were focused in SMD on the most appropriate timing for IMRD patients to get vaccinated to reach the adequate covid-19 vaccination response. Conclusion: These guidelines were developed by a BSR Task Force with a high LOA among panelists, based on the literature review of published studies and expert opinion for COVID-19 vaccination in IMRD patients. Noteworthy, in the pandemic period, up to the time of the review and the consensus process for this document, high-quality evidence was scarce. Thus, it is not a substitute for clinical judgment.
RESUMO
OBJETIVO: O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a resposta dilatadora dependente e independente do endotélio em pacientes portadores de esclerose sistêmica limitada (ESL) com aquela de indivíduos sadios de mesmo gênero, idade e cor. MÉTODOS: Vinte mulheres adultas, não obesas, não tabagistas, não diabéticas, não dislipidêmicas, não hipertensas, que preencheram os critérios para esclerose sistêmica (ES) segundo o American College of Rheumatology, foram submetidas ao exame de Doppler de artéria braquial do membro superior direito. Foi analisada a resposta dilatadora, dependente do endotélio, após isquemia induzida com esfigmomanômetro por cinco minutos no braço direito, e a resposta dilatadora, independente do endotélio, após administração de 300 mcg de nitroglicerina (NTG) sublingual. Esses resultados foram comparados com a resposta obtida em indivíduos sadios. RESULTADOS: O diâmetro longitudinal da artéria braquial (DAB) foi significativamente menor na fase basal 1 nos pacientes com ESL (3,57 ± 0,52 mm e 3,93 ± 0,39 mm, respectivamente no grupo paciente (P) e grupo-controle (C), P = 0,005). Não foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente significativa entre a velocidade das hemácias (VH) após isquemia/hiperemia reativa (HR) e após NTG (110,2 ± 43,86 cm/s vs. 102,0 ± 25,89 cm/s e 63,80 ± 17,69 cm/s vs. 65,4 ± 12,90 cm/s nos grupos P e C, após HR e NTG, respectivamente). Também não foi encontrada diferença significativa entre o DAB após HR e após NTG (3,77 ± 0,59 mm vs. 4,14 ± 0,49 mm e 4,44 ± 0,64 mm vs. 4,70 ± 0,58 mm nos grupos P e C, após HR e NTG, respectivamente). CONCLUSÃO: Embora o grupo de pacientes com ESL tenha apresentado menor DAB basal, a resposta dilatadora dependente e independente do endotélio se manteve preservada em ambos os grupos.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the brachial artery endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent dilating responses in patients with limited systemic sclerosis (LSSc) with those of healthy subjects of the same gender, age and color. METHODS: Twenty adult, non-obese, non-smoker, non-diabetic, non-dyslipidemic, and non-hypertensive women, who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of SSc, were submitted to right brachial artery Doppler ultrasound. The vasodilating responses were analyzed as follows: the endothelium-dependent dilating response, after a 5-minute ischemia in the right arm; and the endothelium-independent dilating response, after administering 300 mcg of nitroglycerin (NTG) sublingually. The results were compared with the response obtained in healthy subjects. RESULTS: Brachial artery longitudinal diameter was significantly low at baseline 1: 3.57 ± 0.52 mm and 3.93 ± 0.39 mm for the LSSc group and the control group, respectively, P = 0.005. The vascular reactivity after the ischemia/reactive hyperemia and the NTG showed no significant difference between the groups (8.60 ± 5.45 mm vs. 9.26 ± 5.91 mm and 25.01 ± 12.55 mm vs. 19.59 ± 7.94 mm for the LSSc and control groups, respectively). Also, no statistically significant difference was found between red blood cell velocity (RBCV) after reactive hyperemia and NTG (110.2 ± 43.86 cm/s vs. 102.0 ± 25.89 cm/s and 63.80 ± 17.69 cm/s vs. 65.4 ± 12.90 cm/s in the LSSc and control groups, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although the LSSc group showed lower brachial artery diameter, the endotheliumdependent and the endothelium-independent dilating responses were preserved in both groups.