First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR).

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All preliminary findings were discussed in a second face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2016. As a result, nine organ/system sections are presented with the main findings; an 'overarching' treatment approach was added. Special emphasis was made on regional implementation issues. Best pharmacologic options were examined for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, haematological manifestations and the antiphospholipid syndrome. The roles of main therapeutic options (ie, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressant agents, therapeutic plasma exchange, belimumab, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose aspirin and anticoagulants) were summarised in each section. In all cases, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity issues were considered to produce a recommendation with special focus on ethnic and socioeconomic aspects. Guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus have been developed and could be used in similar settings.

Usefulness of a mobile app to improve performance of specialists in responding correctly to CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios.

Background and study aims The adherence to and knowledge of physicians about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance guidelines is still suboptimal, threatening the effectiveness of CRC screening. This study assessed the usefulness of a mobile decision support system (MDSS) to improve physician ability to recommend proper timing of and intervals for CRC screening and surveillance. Patients and methods This was a binational, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial including gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons from Argentina and Uruguay. The specialists were invited to respond to a questionnaire with 10 CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios, randomized into two groups, with and without access to a dedicated app (CaPtyVa). The main outcome measure was the proportion of physicians correctly solving at least 60 % of the clinical cases according to local guidelines. Results A total of 213 physicians were included. The proportion of physicians responding correctly at least 60 % of the vignettes was higher in the app group as compared to the control group (90 % versus 56 %) (relative risk [RR] 1.6 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.91). The performance was also higher in the app group for both vignette categories: CRC screening (93 % vs 75 % RR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.01-1.40) and surveillance (85 % vs 47 % RR 1.81 95 %CI 1.46-2.22), respectively. Physicians considered the app easy to use and of great utility in daily practice. Conclusions A MDSS was shown to be a useful tool that improved specialist performance in solving CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios. Its implementation in daily practice may facilitate the adherence of physicians to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines.

Thrombolytics for venous thromboembolic events: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Thrombolytic therapy might reduce venous thromboembolism-related mortality and morbidity, but it could also increase the risk of major bleeding. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thrombolytics in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep venous thrombosis (DVT). We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. Multiple investigators independently screened and collected data. We included 45 studies (4740 participants). Pooled estimates of PE studies indicate probable reduction in mortality with thrombolysis (risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94) (moderate certainty) and possible reduction in nonfatal PE recurrence (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.89) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of DVT studies indicate the possible absence of effects on mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.26-2.28) (low certainty) and recurrent DVT (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.56-1.76) (low certainty), but possible reduction in postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) with thrombolytics (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of the complete body of evidence indicate increases in major bleeding (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.46-2.46) (high certainty) and a probable increase in intracranial bleeding (RR, 3.17; 95% CI 1.19-8.41) (moderate certainty) with thrombolytics. Our findings indicate that thrombolytics probably reduce mortality in patients with submassive- or intermediate-risk PE and may reduce PTS in patients with proximal DVT at the expense of a significant increase in major bleeding. Because the balance between benefits and harms is profoundly influenced by the baseline risks of critical outcomes, stakeholders involved in decision making would need to weigh these effects to define which clinical scenarios merit the use of thrombolytics.