Tocilizumab in refractory aortitis: study on 16 patients and literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Non-infectious aortitis is often refractory to standard immunosuppressive therapy. Since IL-6 has been implicated in the pathogenesis of aortitis, we assessed the efficacy of the anti-IL6 receptor monoconal antibody tocilizumab (TCZ) in a series of patients with refractory non-infectious aortitis. METHODS: Review of 16 patients (14 women/2 men) with refractory aortitis diagnosed by imaging (CT angiography, MR angiography, and/or PET) that were treated with TCZ. RESULTS: The mean age±SD was 51.4±20.1 years. The underlying conditions were: Takayasu arteritis (TakA) (n=7 cases), giant cell arteritis (GCA) (n=7), relapsing polychondritis (RP) (n=1), and aortitis associated with retroperitoneal fibrosis (n=1). TCZ was the first biologic drug used in all patients with GCA and in the patient with aortitis associated with retroperitoneal fibrosis but in only 2 of 7 TakA patients. In the remaining cases anti-TNF inhibitors were prescribed before TCZ (standard dose was 8 mg/kg/iv/4 weeks). After a mean±SD follow-up of 11.8±6.6 months most patients experienced clinical improvement, showing reduction of erythrocyte sedimentation rate from 43±36 mm/1st h to 5±4 mm/1st h at last visit. At TCZ onset, 25% of patients had fever and 19% polymyalgia rheumatica. These manifestations disappeared after 3 months of TCZ therapy. A corticosteroid sparing effect was also achieved (from 27.3±17.6 mg/day of prednisone at TCZ onset to 4.2±3.8 mg/day at last visit). TCZ had to be discontinued in a patient because of severe neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: TCZ appears to be effective and relatively safe in patients with inflammatory aortitis refractory to corticosteroids or to other biologic immunosuppressive drugs.

Strategy to improve the request of uric acid in primary care: preliminary results and evaluation through process and outcome appropriateness indicators.

INTRODUCTION: Alerted by the high rates of request of serum uric acid (UA) in primary care patients, we aimed to design a strategy to improve such an indicator, and to monitor such an intervention through process and outcome appropriateness indicators. METHODS: To design the strategy, several meetings were held between the Laboratory, Rheumatology and Primary Care. The intervention consisted of discharging UA from two laboratory profiles ("Health Check" and "Rheumatology"), making it only possible to request the test in an individualized manner. To assess the intervention effectiveness, the ratio of UA/glucose requests, the quantity of allopurinol prescription and the resulting economic savings were calculated and compared for pre- and post-intervention 12 month periods. RESULTS: There was a 70% decrease in the number of UA requests in the post-intervention period, as compared to the pre-intervention interval. The ratio of UA/glucose requests experienced a significant commensurate drop in the post-intervention period (p<0.01). There was a significant reduction in the prescription of allopurinol (p<0.01). From an economic perspective, the strategy resulted in a savings of 8190 €. CONCLUSION: The strategy resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of UA requests and in the prescription of allopurinol. This highlights a likely existence of prior unnecessary treatment of patients with hyperuricemia in the absence of clinical symptoms.