Blood Composite Scores in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

Complete blood count-derived ratios have been described as inflammatory biomarkers in several diseases. These hematological scores include the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and systemic immune-inflammatory index ([SIRI]; neutrophils × monocytes/lymphocytes). Our aim was to study how these biomarkers are related to disease expression in a large and well-characterized series of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). A total of 284 SLE patients and 181 age- and sex-matched healthy controls were recruited. The NLR, MLR, PLR, and SIRI were calculated, and activity (SLEDAI-2K), severity (Katz), and damage index (SLICC-DI) scores were assessed in patients with SLE. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to study whether these scores differ between patients and controls and how they are related to clinical and laboratory features of the disease. Crude cell counts of neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes, and platelets were lower in SLE patients compared to controls. Despite this, NLR, MLR, and PRL, but not SIRI, were higher in SLE patients than in controls after multivariable analysis. However, the relationship between the different scores and disease characteristics was limited. Only the Katz severity index revealed a significant positive relationship with SIRI, NLR, and MLR after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, alternative complement cascade activation and low C3 were significantly associated with higher NLR, MLR, and PLR. In conclusion, although cytopenias are a common feature of patients with SLE, hematologic composite scores are independently higher in this population compared to controls. However, the relationship of these scores with the characteristics of the disease is scarce, with the relationship with the complement system being the most consistent.

Depression and anxiety in systemic lupus erythematosus: A case-control study on prevalence and associated factors in a single-center cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of self-perceived depression and anxiety in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to explore associated factors. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of unselected patients with SLE (ACR-97 criteria) and controls with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Both completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidity, and treatments were collected, and a multivariate analysis was performed to explore factors associated with depression and anxiety in SLE. RESULTS: The study population comprised 172 patients and 215 controls. Women accounted for 93% of the patients with SLE. Fibromyalgia was recorded in 12.8% and a history of depression in 17%. According to HADS, 37.2% fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for depression and 58.7% those for anxiety; prevalence was similar in the controls (32.6% and 55.1%, respectively). Up to a third of patients with self-perceived depression were not receiving antidepressants. There was no concordance between a previous history of depression and current depression. In the multivariate model, current depression was associated with single marital status (OR 2.69; 95% CI: 1.17-6.42; p = .022), fibromyalgia (7.69; 2.35-30.72; p = .001), smoking (3.12; 1.24-8.07; p = .016), severity of SLE (0.76; 0.6-0.94; p = .016), and organ damage (1.27; 1.01-1.61; p = .042). Current anxiety was only associated with fibromyalgia (3.97; 1.21-17.98; p = .036). CONCLUSIONS: Depression and anxiety are most likely underdiagnosed in SLE. Prevalence appears to be similar to that of other chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Anxiety is associated with fibromyalgia, while depression is also associated with single marital status, smoking, organ damage, and severity of SLE.

Impact of the implementation of a Fracture Liaison Service on pharmaceutical expenses for osteoporosis compared to an area without an FLS.

INTRODUCTION: Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) model for secondary prevention of fractures has demonstrated its cost-effectiveness using decision models. We analyze the impact of a FLS on pharmaceutical expenditures for osteoporosis (OP) in real-world circumstances. METHODS: Expenditures on OP medications from January 2011 to January 2017 were compiled. Pharmaceutical expenditures in the southern area of Gran Canaria were used as a control group to measure the impact of implementing an FLS in the northern area. We estimated generalized least squares regressions with interrupted time-series analysis where two interventions were considered: March 2012 (implementation of the FLS) and March 2016 (incorporation of nursing staff for inpatients with hip fracture). RESULTS: The northern area incurred greater expenditures for group I and II drugs. The difference in bisphosphonates expenditures between areas varied from 10.5% higher in the northern area pre-FLS to 11.2% post-FLS and 18.3% since March 2016. However, interrupted time series models do not find a significant impact of implementation of FLS on the pharmaceutical expenditures for either drug group. CONCLUSION: The implantation of an FLS did not lead to an increase in pharmaceutical expenditures for OP over the 5-year period compared to the standard care provided for secondary fracture preventions.

Prevención secundaria de fracturas tras fractura de fémur en el área norte de Gran Canaria: comparativa 2004-2014 / Secondary fracture prevention after femur fractures in the Gran Canaria North Health Area: a 2004-2014 comparison

No disponible

Resultados de un modelo de prevención secundaria de fractura osteoporótica coordinado por reumatología centrado en la enfermera y el médico de atención primaria / Results of a model of secondary prevention for osteoporotic fracture coordinated by rheumatology and focused on the nurse and primary care physicians

Objetivo. Evaluar la influencia de la implantación de un programa para la prevención secundaria de fracturas osteoporóticas sobre la prescripción de bisfosfonatos y la persistencia del tratamiento a corto plazo. Pacientes y métodos. Se incluyeron pacientes con fractura por fragilidad > 50 años atendidos en el servicio de urgencias durante un año. El programa consistió en: 1) plan de formación en osteoporosis de los médicos de primaria; 2) densitometría ósea; 3) cuestionario relativo a osteoporosis y educación del paciente por la enfermera; 4) derivación al médico de primaria o, en caso de múltiples fracturas o precisar terapia parenteral, a consulta hospitalaria; y 5) seguimiento y comprobación de inicio del tratamiento prescrito a través de los registros electrónicos y encuesta telefónica. La variable principal de desenlace fue el porcentaje de pacientes que, habiéndose prescrito un bisfosfonato, cumple el tratamiento a los 3 meses. Resultados. De 532 pacientes con criterios de inclusión, 202 (38%) no aceptaron participar. Comparados con los pacientes que participaron, los que rechazaron tenían una edad promedio mayor (p < 0,01) y una mayor frecuencia de fractura de cadera (p < 0,01). Así, se incluyeron 330 pacientes con una edad media de 71 años, el 77% mujeres. Cuarenta y cinco pacientes (13%) utilizaban bisfosfonato al inicio del estudio, mientras que tras la visita basal se prescribió a 223 pacientes (67%). En el seguimiento a los 3 meses, el 78% de los pacientes a los que se aconsejó bisfosfonato estaba tomando la medicación. Conclusiones. El programa de prevención secundaria de fracturas coordinado por reumatología consigue que el número de pacientes que inicia bisfosfonato se multiplique por 4 en comparación con la visita basal (AU)

Objective: To assess the influence of the implementation of a program for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures on prescribing bisphosphonates and persistent short-term treatment. Patients and methods: Patients > 50 years with fragility fracture attended in the emergency department were enrolled in an observational study. The program consisted of: 1) training of primary care physicians, 2) baseline visit: questionnaire on osteoporosis, bone densitometry and patient education, 3) patient referral to primary care, except those with multiple fractures or requiring special study or therapy, who were referred to a specialist, and 4) follow-up by checking prescriptions in electronic records, and a telephone survey. The outcome variable was the percentage of patients who, on having been prescribed bisphosphonates, still adhered to the treatment at 3 months. Results: Of the 532 patients with inclusion criteria, 202 (39%) refused to participate. Those who refused to take part had a higher mean age ( P < .01) and a higher frequency of hip fracture (P < .01) compared with patients who did participate. A total of 330 patients were included for intervention, with a mean age of 71 years, and 254(77%) were female. An antiresorptive was being used by 45 patients (13%) at baseline. After the baseline visit 223 patients (67%) were recommended a bisphosphonate. In the follow-up at 3 months 78% of patients who had been prescribed bisphosphonate were still receiving treatment. Conclusions: We present a multidisciplinary program for secondary prevention of fractures coordinated by rheumatology in which the number of patients who were receiving bisphosphonate at 3 months increased by four times compared to baseline visit (AU)

Longitudinal practice patterns of prophylaxis of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica.

The aim of this study was to analyze the longitudinal practice patterns of prophylaxis of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). Patients diagnosed with PMR were collected retrospectively in two rheumatology departments. In addition to demographic and diagnostic criteria, the chart review included the following information at baseline and at follow-up: doses of prednisone, prescription of calcium, vitamin D and bisphosphonates, bone mass measurement (BMD) and fragility fractures. We analyzed the percentage of patients undergoing BMD and were prescribed a bisphosphonate over the years. We evaluated 158 patients: 117 of them were women, mean age was 73 years, and they had an average follow-up of 4.8 years. 104 patients (66 %) received osteoporosis medication during the first visit, 44 of them were given bisphosphonate. During follow-up, another 30 treatments with bisphosphonate were added (46 % overall) while 37 cases (23 %) received no treatment with calcium or bisphosphonate. BMD was performed in 111 patients (69 %; 53 % of males and 76 % of females). Factors associated with the use of bisphosphonates were female sex (OR 4.4, 95 % CI 4.02-4.86), BMD (OR 2.4, 95 % CI 2.05-2.78) and commencement of treatment after the year 2005 (54 vs 37 %, OR 1.93, 95 % CI 1.60-2.26). No significant differences were found with age, initial doses of prednisone or the hospital. According to recent prevention guidelines, treatment with biphosphonate should have been administered in more than 90 % of patients. Although prophylaxis of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in patients with PMR has increased in the recent years, many patients do not receive prophylaxis with bisphosphonate during the first visit.

Results of a model of secondary prevention for osteoporotic fracture coordinated by rheumatology and focused on the nurse and primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of the implementation of a program for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures on prescribing bisphosphonates and persistent short-term treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients >50 years with fragility fracture attended in the emergency department were enrolled in an observational study. The program consisted of: 1) training of primary care physicians, 2) baseline visit: questionnaire on osteoporosis, bone densitometry and patient education, 3) patient referral to primary care, except those with multiple fractures or requiring special study or therapy, who were referred to a specialist, and 4) follow-up by checking prescriptions in electronic records, and a telephone survey. The outcome variable was the percentage of patients who, on having been prescribed bisphosphonates, still adhered to the treatment at 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 532 patients with inclusion criteria, 202 (39%) refused to participate. Those who refused to take part had a higher mean age (P<.01) and a higher frequency of hip fracture (P<.01) compared with patients who did participate. A total of 330 patients were included for intervention, with a mean age of 71 years, and 254(77%) were female. An antiresorptive was being used by 45 patients (13%) at baseline. After the baseline visit 223 patients (67%) were recommended a bisphosphonate. In the follow-up at 3 months 78% of patients who had been prescribed bisphosphonate were still receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We present a multidisciplinary program for secondary prevention of fractures coordinated by rheumatology in which the number of patients who were receiving bisphosphonate at 3 months increased by four times compared to baseline visit.

Aplicación de las guías de prevención secundaria de fractura osteoporótica y del índice FRAX en una cohorte de pacientes con fractura por fragilidad / Application of guidelines for secondary prevention of fracture and the FRAX index

Fundamento y objetivo: Existen distintas guías para la prevención secundaria de fracturas relacionadas con la osteoporosis. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar su aplicación en una cohorte de pacientes con fractura por fragilidad.Pacientes y método: Los adultos mayores de 50 años registrados en el servicio de urgencias del hospital con fractura por fragilidad fueron invitados a un estudio de prevención secundaria de fractura. Se recogieron los datos clínicos incluidos en el índice FRAX y se realizó densitometría ósea. Para el cálculo de los pacientes candidatos a prevención se emplearon las guías de manejo de la osteoporosis. Resultados: Aplicando las guías de prevención a 380 pacientes incluidos, el porcentaje de candidatos a tratamiento fue del 54-100% en las mujeres y del 26-81% en los varones. En las fracturas de cadera la cifra fue del 81 al 100% y en las de antebrazo del 36 al 93%. El riesgo de fractura de cadera por el índice FRAX fue ≥3% en el 35% de la muestra. Las guías más restrictivas fueron la National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence y la National Osteoporosis Foundation 2009 (54-57%), a diferencia de la National Guideline Clearinghouse y la National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (87-93%). Conclusiones: Existen diferencias en el porcentaje de pacientes a tratar para prevenir nuevas fracturas según la guía de tratamiento aplicada. La inclusión del FRAX conlleva una reducción de casos a tratarFundamento y objetivo Existen distintas guías para la prevención secundaria de fracturas relacionadas con la osteoporosis. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar su aplicación en una cohorte de pacientes con fractura por fragilidad (AU)

Background and objectives: There are different guidelines for secondary prevention of fractures relatedwith osteoporosis. Our aim is to analyse the appliance of such guidelines in a sample of patients withfragility fracturePatients and methods: Adult patients older than 50 years attended in the emergency department with afragility fracture were invited to participate in a study for secondary prevention. Clinical data anddensitometry for the FRAX index were recorded. Current guidelines were employed to calculate thenumber of patients who needed secondary prevention.Results: With the appliance of current guidelines to 380 patients, 54-100% of women and 26-81% of menwere candidates for treatment. For hip fractures the percentage was 81-100% and for forearm fractures36-93%. FRAX index for hip fracture was 3% in 35% of patients. The National Institute for Health andClinical Excellence and the National Osteoporosis Foundation 2009 were the most restrictive guidelines(54% and 57% respectively). On the other hand the National Guideline Clearinghouse (87%) and theNational Osteoporosis Guideline Group (93%).Conclusion: There are high differences in the percentage of patients who need treatment to prevent newfractures according to the guidelines. Fewer patients require treatment when the FRAX index is includedin a guideline (AU)

[Application of guidelines for secondary prevention of fracture and the FRAX index in patients with fragility fracture]. / Aplicación de las guías de prevención secundaria de fractura osteoporótica y del índice FRAX en una cohorte de pacientes con fractura por fragilidad.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are different guidelines for secondary prevention of fractures related with osteoporosis. Our aim is to analyse the appliance of such guidelines in a sample of patients with fragility fracture PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients older than 50 years attended in the emergency department with a fragility fracture were invited to participate in a study for secondary prevention. Clinical data and densitometry for the FRAX index were recorded. Current guidelines were employed to calculate the number of patients who needed secondary prevention. RESULTS: With the appliance of current guidelines to 380 patients, 54-100% of women and 26-81% of men were candidates for treatment. For hip fractures the percentage was 81-100% and for forearm fractures 36-93%. FRAX index for hip fracture was ≥3% in 35% of patients. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the National Osteoporosis Foundation 2009 were the most restrictive guidelines (54% and 57% respectively). On the other hand the National Guideline Clearinghouse (87%) and the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (93%). CONCLUSION: There are high differences in the percentage of patients who need treatment to prevent new fractures according to the guidelines. Fewer patients require treatment when the FRAX index is included in a guideline.