Measurement of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps as a Biomarker for the Differential Diagnosis Between Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Positive Individuals With Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis and Nonautoimmune Diseases.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have a correlation with disease activity in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). However, it is not known whether there is an association between NETs and the presence of ANCA in other diseases. This study aimed to assess the occurrence of NETs in individuals with ANCA and whether serum NET quantitation is capable of distinguishing them with regard to the diagnosis. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study. From the positive ANCA by indirect immunofluorescence, 94 individuals were divided into groups: AAV, infectious diseases, and neoplastic diseases. Healthy controls served for comparisons. Neutrophil extracellular traps were evaluated through the investigation of NET remnants, by detecting cell-free DNA bound to proteins such as histone, myeloperoxidase, and neutrophil elastase (NE). RESULTS: In patients with perinuclear ANCA (p-ANCA) the detection of NETs by NE was able to distinguish AAV from infection/neoplasia and healthy controls. Receiver operating characteristic curves for serum NETs by NE in patients with p-ANCA were drawn in 2 situations: AAV versus infection/neoplasia, showing a sensitivity of 0.65 and specificity of 0.84, with an area under the curve of 65%; and AAV versus controls, showing a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.88, with an area under the curve of 96%. CONCLUSIONS: For p-ANCA-positive individuals, we found higher serum NETs detected by NE-DNA in those with chronic infectious and neoplastic diseases than in AAV individuals and healthy controls. This allows us to infer that the evaluation of serum NETs may be of value as a biomarker for differential diagnosis.

Diagnostic Agreement Among General Practitioners, Residents, and Senior Rheumatologists for Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance of the diagnoses made by senior rheumatologists and those made by residents in rheumatology and by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: In this cohort, 497 patients referred by GPs from August 1, 2018 to December 16, 2019 were evaluated first by a second-year resident in rheumatology. After clinical rounds, the diagnoses by senior rheumatologists were assumed as the criterion standard and defined the prevalence of the rheumatic diseases, divided into 5 groups: rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, other connective tissue diseases and vasculitis, nonautoimmune rheumatic diseases, and nonrheumatic diseases. The follow-up ended on November 30, 2020. We calculated sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and κ coefficient of the diagnosis by GPs and residents. RESULTS: The diagnoses were changed for 58% of the referral letters. Diseases of low complexity, such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis, accounted for 50% of the diagnoses. Compared with senior rheumatologists, residents in rheumatology had κ > 0.6 for all the groups, whereas GPs had κ < 0.5, with the worst performance for nonautoimmune rheumatic disease (κ = -0.18) and nonrheumatic disease (κ = 0.15). In terms of level of complexity, 46% of the letters were inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We found a poor level of diagnostic agreement between GPs and the rheumatology team. General practitioners had difficulties diagnosing and treating rheumatic diseases, referring patients that should be treated in the primary level of health care. One year of training in rheumatology made residents' skills comparable to those of senior rheumatologists.

Beneficial effects of colchicine for moderate to severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of colchicine to standard treatment for COVID-19 results in better outcomes. DESIGN: We present the results of a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of colchicine for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19, with 75 patients allocated 1:1 from 11 April to 30 August 2020. Colchicine regimen was 0.5 mg thrice daily for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days. The primary endpoints were the need for supplemental oxygen, time of hospitalisation, need for admission and length of stay in intensive care unit and death rate. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 for placebo and 36 for colchicine) completed the study. Median (and IQR) time of need for supplemental oxygen was 4.0 (2.0-6.0) days for the colchicine group and 6.5 (4.0-9.0) days for the placebo group (p<0.001). Median (IQR) time of hospitalisation was 7.0 (5.0-9.0) days for the colchicine group and 9.0 (7.0-12.0) days for the placebo group (p=0.003). At day 2, 67% versus 86% of patients maintained the need for supplemental oxygen, while at day 7, the values were 9% versus 42%, in the colchicine and the placebo groups, respectively (log rank; p=0.001). Two patients died, both in placebo group. Diarrhoea was more frequent in the colchicine group (p=0.26). CONCLUSION: Colchicine reduced the length of both, supplemental oxygen therapy and hospitalisation. The drug was safe and well tolerated. Once death was an uncommon event, it is not possible to ensure that colchicine reduced mortality of COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RBR-8jyhxh.