Assessment and comparison of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria with the revised Sapporo criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)-positive patients using the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria and compare the revised Sapporo criteria and the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria and evaluate whether the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria provide added value over the revised Sapporo criteria. METHODS: In this descriptive study, 94 aPL-positive patients (with or without APS diagnosis) were identified from two hospital-based registries (Gazi and Hacettepe University). Patients were classified into four groups to compare both criteria sets. These four groups are as follows: (1) patients classified with only the revised Sapporo criteria; (2) patients classified with only the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria; (3) patients classified with both two criteria sets; and (4) patients classified with neither two criteria set. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients, 11 were classified with only the revised Sapporo criteria; one with only the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria; 52 with both criteria sets; and 30 with neither set of criteria. For these 94 patients, the operating characteristics of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria, using the revised Sapporo criteria as the gold standard, the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS entry criteria demonstrated 100% sensitivity, and the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria demonstrated 98% specificity and 82.5% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The study emphasizes the importance of recognizing differences in clinical manifestations, such as early pregnancy loss without severe preeclampsia (PEC) and/or severe placental insufficiency (PI) and calls for a nuanced discussion on anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta 2-glycoprotein-I (anti-ß2GPI) immunoglobulin G (IgG) cutoff values.

Comparison of Patient Costs in Internal Medicine and Anaesthesiology Intensive Care Units in a Tertiary University Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The allocation of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to health is limited, therefore it has made a need for professional management of health business. Hospital managers as well as employees are required to have sufficient knowledge about the hospital costs. Hospital facilities like intensive care units that require specialization and advanced technology have an important part in costs. For this purpose, cost analysis studies should be done in the general health business and special units separately. METHODS: In this study we aimed to compare the costs of anaesthesiology and internal medicine intensive care units (ICU) roughly. RESULTS: After approval of this study by Gazi University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee, the costs of 855 patients that were hospitalized, examined and treated for at least 24 hours in internal medicine and anaesthesiology ICUs between January 2012-August 2013 (20 months period) were taken and analyzed from chief staff of the Department of Information Technology, Gazi University Hospital. CONCLUSION: At the end of the study, we observed clear differences between internal medicine and anaesthesiology ICUs arising from transactions and patient characteristics of units. We stated that these differences should be considered by Social Security Institution (SSI) for the reimbursement of the services. Further, we revealed that SSI payments do not meet the intensive care expenditure.