Can Nurse-Based Management Screening Ensure Adequate Outcomes in Patients With Gestational Diabetes? A Comparison of 2 Organizational Models.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an impaired glucose tolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a blood glucose monitoring protocol implemented by nurses and dietitians in a diabetes team to the previously established protocol of direct monitoring of GDM patients by a diabetologist. METHODS: Two groups of patients were formed: The first group was based on a traditional protocol (P1: 230 patients) with patients' blood glucose constantly checked by a diabetologist. In the second structured group (P2: 220 patients) patients were referred to a diabetologist only if they required insulin therapy. RESULTS: The number of medical visits (P2: 1.28 ± 0.70 vs P1: 3.27 ± 1.44; P < .001) and the percentage of patients with hypoglycemia (P2: 6.8% vs P1: 15.2%; P < .006) were found to be lower in group P2 than in group P1. In both groups, a direct relationship was found between a parental history of diabetes and the risk of GDM (odds ratio [OR]: P1 = 2.2 [1.17-4.12]; P2 = 2.5 [1.26-5.12]). In group P1, it was observed that hyperweight gain in patients who were already overweight before becoming pregnant significantly increased the risk of macrosomia (OR: 3.11 [1.39-25.7]), whereas this was not detected in patients in group P2. In group P2, a correlation was found between macrosomia and insulin therapy (OR: 0.066 vs 0.34). In group P1 and group P2, a correlation was observed between insulin therapy and a family history of diabetes (OR: 2.20 vs 2.27), and a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m in group P2 (OR: 3.0 vs 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: The data we collected show that creating a structured protocol for GDM management reduces the number of medical visits required by patients without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, macrosomia, or hyperweight gain during pregnancy.

Circulating endothelial cells and risk of progression in patients with hepatocellular cancer receiving sorafenib.

AIM: We investigated the behavior of circulating endothelial cells (CEC) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving sorafenib, and whether CEC levels were associated with time to progression (TTP). MATERIALS & METHODS: CECs in advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib were counted at baseline and every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty four HCC patients were enrolled in the study. Median TTP was 3.2 months (1-6). Median baseline CEC levels were 67 cells/ml, with an increase of 169.8% after 4 weeks of treatment. Any time CEC levels in patients with a TTP lower than 4 months were higher, but not statistically significant, compared with those in patients with TTP more than 4 months. CONCLUSION: Treatment with sorafenib changed CEC levels in HCC patients.

The clinical relevance of early anti-adalimumab antibodies detection in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: A prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relevance of anti-adalimumab (anti-ADA) antibodies (Abs) and their relationship with clinical/laboratory features in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Fifty-eight patients affected with RA, AS and PsA were prospectively enrolled. Clinical/laboratory characteristics, disease activity, anti-ADA, anti-nuclear (ANA), anti-double strand (ds)DNA, anti-extractable nuclear antigens (anti-ENA) and anti-phospholipid Abs (aPL) were evaluated at baseline, 4, 12 and 24 weeks of adalimumab treatment. RESULTS: Anti-ADA Abs were observed in 11/58 (19%) patients; they were detected within the 4th week of therapy in 90.9% of the positive subjects. Anti-ADA positivity was associated with significantly lower mean adalimumab serum levels (P<0.05). Treatment failure was observed in 20/58 (34.5%) patients and was significantly associated with anti-ADA Abs (P<0.05). Mean adalimumab serum levels were significantly lower in patients with treatment failure than in the responders one, both in the whole cohort (P<0.01) and in the group of anti-ADA positive patients (P<0.01). Adverse events happened more often in anti-ADA positive then in anti-ADA negative patients (27.3% vs 14.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-ADA abs could be considered an early marker associated to a poor clinical response to adalimumab treatment. Routine ANA/anti-ENA/aPL monitoring did not reveal as useful tools to predict the development of anti-ADA abs.