Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis of amyloidosis: Part 1/3 Year 2020 / [Guía de Práctica Clínica para el diagnóstico de la amiloidosis: Parte 1/3. Año 2020]

Method: Use the PICO format to generate a series of questions, focusing on the specificity and sensitivity of the amyloidosis diagnostic test. PubMed searches were conducted in English and Spanish from July to August 2019. The level of evidence and recommendation are based on the GRADE system (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm). The recommendations are graded according to their direction (for or against) and strength (strong and weak). Finally, it is recommended to use GLIA tools to evaluate the obstacles and facilitators in implementation. Suggested explanation: A strong suggestion indicates a high degree of trust in support or opposition to the intervention. When defining a strong recommendation, this guide uses the "recommended" language. The weaker recommendations indicate that the outcome of the intervention (favorable or unfavorable) is doubtful. In this case, if a weak recommendation is defined, the "recommendation" language is used. How to use these guidelines: Recommendations must be explained within the scope of special care in validated diagnostic studies conducted by specially trained doctors. It is not assumed to change the coexistence conditions of the disease process. Presumably, the attending physician has a high degree of suspicion of amyloidosis. It assumes that diagnostic research is conducted by well-trained doctors using a validated standardized method. This guide is intended for health care professionals and those involved in health care policies to help ensure that the necessary agreements have been reached to provide appropriate care. Recommendations: For patients with suspected amyloidosis, it is recommended; Confirmation in the tissue by biopsy and Congo red staining with the characteristic green birefringence under polarized light is recommended.Confirmation by electron microscopy of the biopsy tissue is recommended. Protein typing by mass spectrometry is recommended. Protein typing by optical and / or electronic immunomicroscopy is recommended, as long as there are reliable antibodies. Measurement of serum free light chains is recommended for evaluation of a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder. Serum and urinary immunofixation is recommended for evaluation of a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder. Measurement of serum free light chains, plus serum and urinary immunofixation is recommended for the evaluation of a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder. For patients suspected of having amyloidosis, it is suggested; Demonstration of a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder by demonstration of clonal plasma cells by the most sensitive technique available in the bone marrow for the diagnosis of AL-type amyloidosis. Confirmation of ATTRv amyloidosis by DNA sequencing of the 4-exon amyloidogenic TTR gene in patients with suspected ATTRv amyloidosis.

Métodos: Se generó un listado de preguntas con el formato PICO centradas en la especificidad y sensibilidad de las pruebas diagnósticas en amiloidosis. Se realizó la búsqueda en PubMed durante julio-agosto del 2019, en inglés y español. Los niveles de evidencia y los grados de recomendación se basan en el sistema GRADE (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm). Las recomendaciones se graduaron según su dirección (a favor o en contra) y según fuerza (fuertes y débiles). Las recomendaciones finales fueron evaluadas con la herramienta GLIA para barreras y facilitadores en la implementación de éstas. Interpretación de recomendaciones: Las recomendaciones fuertes indican alta confianza, ya sea a favor o en contra, de una intervención. En esta guía se utiliza el lenguaje "se recomienda" cuando se define una recomendación fuerte. Las recomendaciones débiles indican que los resultados para una intervención, favorable o desfavorable, son dudosos. En este caso, se utiliza el lenguaje "se sugiere", cuando se define una recomendación débil. Como utilizar estas pautas: Las recomendaciones deben ser interpretadas en el contexto de la atención especializada, con estudios diagnósticos validados y realizados por médicos entrenados. No asume condiciones coexistentes que modificaran el curso de la enfermedad. Se asume que el médico tratante tiene alto nivel de sospecha de amiloidosis. Asume que los estudios diagnósticos son realizados por médicos entrenados con métodos validados y estandarizados. Esta guía es relevante para los profesionales de la salud y los involucrados en las políticas sanitarias, para ayudar a asegurar que existan los acuerdos necesarios para brindar la atención adecuada. Recomendaciones En pacientes con sospecha de amiloidosis se recomienda: La confirmación en el tejido mediante biopsia y tinción con rojo Congo con la característica birrefringencia verde bajo luz polarizada. La confirmación mediante microscopía electrónica en el tejido de biopsia. La tipificación de la proteína mediante espectrometría de masa. La tipificación de la proteína mediante inmunomicroscopía óptica y/o electrónica, en la medida que haya anticuerpos confiables. La medición de las cadenas livianas libres séricas para evaluación de un trastorno proliferativo de células plasmáticas monoclonales. La Inmunofijación sérica y urinaria para la evaluación de un trastorno proliferativo de células plasmáticas monoclonales. La medición de las cadenas livianas libres sérica, más la Inmunofijación sérica y urinaria para la evaluación de un trastorno proliferativo de células plasmáticas monoclonales. En pacientes con sospecha de amiloidosis se sugiere: Demostración de un trastorno proliferativo de células plasmáticas monoclonales mediante la demostración de plasmocitos clonales por la técnica más sensible disponible en la médula ósea para el diagnóstico de amiloidosis de tipo AL. La confirmación de amiloidosis ATTRv mediante secuenciación de ADN del gen TTR amiloidogénico de los 4 exones en pacientes con sospecha de amiloidosis por ATTRv.

Risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with celiac disease: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The association of celiac disease with colorectal neoplasia is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of colorectal neoplasia among patients with celiac disease. METHODS: We carried out a multicenter, retrospective case-control study, within four community hospitals. Celiac disease patients with a complete colonoscopy were regarded as cases and those without celiac disease as controls. For each case, two controls matched for age, sex, indication for colonoscopy and colorectal cancer family history, were randomly selected. The main outcome evaluated was risk of colorectal polyps, adenomas, advanced neoplastic lesions and cancer. RESULTS: We identified 118 patients with celiac disease and 236 controls. The risk of polyps, adenomas and advanced neoplastic lesions was similar in both groups (OR 1.25, CI 0.71-2.18, p=0.40; OR 1.39, CI 0.73-2.63, p=0.31; and OR 1.00, CI 0.26-3.72, p=1.00, respectively). On multivariate analysis, age >75 years old, and first-grade CRC family history were associated with adenomas (OR 2.68 CI 1.03-6.98, OR 6.68 CI 1.03-47.98 respectively) and advanced neoplastic lesions (OR 15.03, CI 2.88-78.3; OR 6.46 CI 1.23-33.79, respectively). With respect to celiac disease characteristic, a low adherence to a gluten free diet was independently associated with the presence of adenomas (OR 6.78 CI 1.39-33.20 p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Celiac disease was not associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Nonadherence to a strict gluten free diet was associated with the presence of adenomas. Further studies addressing celiac disease characteristics are needed to confirm this observation.