The Role of Plasma Calprotectin in Non-infectious Uveitis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of plasma calprotectin in non-infectious uveitis. METHODS: This is an observational both cross-sectional and prospective study. Patients with active non-infectious uveitis were recruited as well as nonuveitic controls. Plasma calprotectin was determined and an ophthalmological examination was performed for both patients and controls. Independent variables possibly influencing levels of plasma calprotectin were recorded and analyzed. Categorical variables were compared by chi-square test (applying correction by continuity if necessary). T-test (or Kruskal-Wallis when appropriate) was used to compare averages. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess relationship between plasma calprotectin levels and independent variables. Spearman coefficient was calculated in order to establish correlation between plasma calprotectin and anterior chamber cell grading. Changes in plasma calprotectin levels between the flare beginning and its resolution were determined with mixed model for repeated measures. R software (version 3.6.0) was used to perform the statistical analysis. RESULTS: We included 74 patients and 40 controls in the cross-sectional study. Plasma calprotectin levels were higher in uveitis patients compared to those of controls (p = .003), being higher in younger patients and patients with posterior uveitis. No correlation between calprotectin and anterior chamber inflammation degree was found (p = .198). For the prospective study, we included 36 patients. We found no significant differences in calprotectin levels between active and inactive uveitis (p = .344). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma calprotectin levels are elevated in uveitis patients and are influenced by age and anatomical location of uveitis. Further investigation is needed to assess the relationship between calprotectin and uveitis activity.

Quality-of-care standards for early arthritis clinics.

The diagnosis and treatment of early arthritis is associated with improved patient outcomes. One way to achieve this is by organising early arthritis clinics (EACs). The objective of this project was to develop standards of quality for EACs. The standards were developed using the two-round Delphi method. The questionnaire, developed using the best-available scientific evidence, includes potentially relevant items describing the dimensions of quality of care in the EAC. The questionnaire was completed by 26 experts (physicians responsible for the EACs in Spain and chiefs of the rheumatology service in Spanish hospitals). Two hundred and forty-four items (standards) describing the quality of the EAC were developed, grouped by the following dimensions: (1) patient referral to the EAC; (2) standards of structure for an EAC; (3) standards of process; (4) relation between primary care physicians and the EAC; (5) diagnosis and assessment of early arthritis; (6) patient treatment and follow-up in the EAC; (7) research and training in an EAC; and (8) quality of care perceived by the patient. An operational definition of early arthritis was also developed based on eight criteria. The standards developed can be used to measure/establish the requirements, resources, and processes that EACs have or should have to carry out their treatment, research, and educational activities. These standards may be useful to health professionals, patient associations, and health authorities.

Tocilizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to DMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: a large, open-label study close to clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses (IR) to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or both DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis). METHODS: Patients-categorised as TNFi-naive, TNFi-previous (washout) or TNFi-recent (no washout) -received open-label tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks ± DMARDs for 24 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations were monitored. Efficacy end points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism responses. RESULTS: Overall, 1681 (976 TNF-naive, 298 TNFi-previous and 407 TNFi-recent) patients were treated; 5.1% discontinued treatment because of AEs. The AE rate was numerically higher in TNFi-recent (652.6/100 patient-years (PY)) and TNFi-previous (653.6/100PY) than in TNFi-naive (551.1/100PY) patients. Serious AE rates were 18.0/100PY, 28.0/100PY and 18.6/100PY; serious infection rates were 6.0/100PY, 6.8/100PY and 4.2/100PY, respectively. At week 4, 36.5% of patients achieved ACR20 response and 14.9% DAS28 remission (<2.6); at week 24, 66.9%, 46.6%, 26.4% and 56.8% achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses and DAS28 remission, respectively. Overall, 61.6% (TNFi-naive), 48.5% (TNFi-previous) and 50.4% (TNFi-recent) patients achieved DAS28 remission. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA who were DMARD-IR/TNFi-IR, tocilizumab ± DMARDs provided rapid and sustained efficacy without unexpected safety concerns.

[Consensus on the Use of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. A document with evidence-based recommendations. Grupo de Expertos en Rituximab. ]. / Consenso de uso de rituximab en artritis reumatoide. Un documento con recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia.

INTRODUCTION: Rituximab has been employed successfully for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). However, its particular mechanism of action, as well as a lack of concrete guidelines for its management have generated doubts on its use. OBJECTIVE: To establish recommendations that facilitates the use of rituximab in common clinical practice. METHODS: In a first Delphi round, 9 expert rheumatologists got together to develop questions on those subjects generating most doubts on the efficacy and safety of the drug. These were adapted to perform a systematic review of the evidence, which was presented in a second meeting. Nominal groups were formed to respond to each question and give a recommendation. These recommendations were presented in a second Delphi round to a larger group of experts in rheumatology. Once again recommendations were discussed, modified and voted upon. Once approved, a vote on the degree of agreement for each recommendation was carried out. RESULTS: 17 recommendations were established, 10 regarding efficacy and 7 safety. All of the efficacy recommendations except 3 presented a good or moderate degree of evidence. Among the safety recommendations, 3 had a good or moderate degree of evidence while in the rest it was indirect, scarce or non-existent and a product of expert recommendation. The degree of agreement between experts was elevated for most of the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations attempt to clear doubts on the use of rituximab and establish guidelines for its use in daily practice. Efficacy recommendations have a high degree of evidence, allowing the clinician to be guided in therapeutic decisions. Safety recommendations have a lower degree of evidence.

Glucosamine sulfate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using acetaminophen as a side comparator.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the prescription formulation of glucosamine sulfate (1,500 mg administered once daily) on the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis (OA) during a 6-month treatment course. METHODS: Three hundred eighteen patients were enrolled in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in which acetaminophen, the currently preferred medication for symptomatic treatment of OA, was used as a side comparator. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral glucosamine sulfate 1,500 mg once daily (n = 106), acetaminophen 3 gm/day (n = 108), or placebo (n = 104). The primary efficacy outcome measure was the change in the Lequesne index after 6 months. Secondary parameters included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and response according to the Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. These outcome measures were assessed using an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, the study patients had moderately severe OA symptoms (mean Lequesne index approximately 11 points). Glucosamine sulfate was more effective than placebo in improving the Lequesne score, with a final decrease of 3.1 points, versus 1.9 with placebo (difference between glucosamine sulfate and placebo -1.2 [95% confidence interval -2.3, -0.8]) (P = 0.032). The 2.7-point decrease with acetaminophen was not significantly different from that with placebo (difference -0.8 [95% confidence interval -1.9, 0.3]) (P = 0.18). Similar results were observed for the WOMAC. There were more responders to glucosamine sulfate (39.6%) and acetaminophen (33.3%) than to placebo (21.2%) (P = 0.004 and P = 0.047, respectively, versus placebo). Safety was good, and was comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that glucosamine sulfate at the oral once-daily dosage of 1,500 mg is more effective than placebo in treating knee OA symptoms. Although acetaminophen also had a higher responder rate compared with placebo, it failed to show significant effects on the algofunctional indexes.