Montreal cognitive assessment as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients without overt neuropsychiatric manifestations.

OBJECTIVES: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an increasingly used screening tool for cognitive impairment. The aim of this study was to examine how MoCA performed in identifying cognitive impairment (CI) domains in SLE patients compared with formal standardized neuropsychological testing (NPT). Factors related to SLE disease, immunologic and psychological state associated with CI were also explored. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 50 SLE patients without overt neuropsychiatric manifestations from April 2017 to May 2018. The patients were evaluated with MoCA, formal NPT and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS) 42-item self-report questionnaire. Values of sensitivity and specificity were computed for different cut-offs of MoCA within each cognitive domain of NPT and descriptive analysis was used to identify the factors affecting cognitive function. RESULTS: The median score for MoCA was 27.5 (range 22-30). Using a MoCA cutoff of <26, 18 (36%) were identified to have CI using NPT compared to 8 (16%) using MoCA. The most frequently affected cognitive domain was executive functioning with 15 affected patients. Sensitivities and specificities of the MoCA range from 50% to 100% and 5.7% to 16.7%, respectively, across cognitive domains. A lower MoCA cutoff of <25 improve sensitivity of identifying impairment in executive functioning from 60% to 80%. In univariate analysis, DASS scores, disease activity, presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, presence of concurrent autoimmune disease, current, and cumulative corticosteroid therapy did not predict cognitive performance. CONCLUSION: MoCA may be a useful screening tool to identify the most frequently affected cognitive domain which is executive functioning using a lower cutoff of <25 in SLE patients without overt neuropsychiatric manifestations.

Epidemiology and risk factors for drug allergy.

The aim of this review was to describe the current evidence-based knowledge of the epidemiology, prevalence, incidence, risk factors and genetic associations of drug allergy. Articles published between 1966 and 2010 were identified in MEDLINE using the key words adult, adverse drug reaction reporting systems, age factors, anaphylactoid, anaphylaxis, anaesthetics, antibiotics, child, drug allergy, drug eruptions, ethnic groups, hypersensitivity, neuromuscular depolarizing agents, neuromuscular nondepolarizing agents, sex factors, Stevens Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Additional studies were identified from article reference lists. Relevant, peer-reviewed original research articles, case series and reviews were considered for review. Current epidemiological studies on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have used different definitions for ADR-related terminology, often do not differentiate immunologically and non-immunologically mediated drug hypersensitivity, study different study populations (different ethnicities, inpatients or outpatients, adults or children), utilize different methodologies (spontaneous vs. non-spontaneous reporting, cohort vs. case-control studies), different methods of assessing drug imputability and different methods of data analyses. Potentially life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. HLA associations for SCAR associated with allopurinol, carbamazepine and abacavir have been reported with the potential for clinical use in screening prior to prescription. Identification of risk factors for drug allergy and appropriate genetic screening of at-risk ethnic groups may improve the outcomes of drug-specific SCAR. Research and collaboration are necessary for the generation of clinically-relevant, translational pharmacoepidemiological and pharmacogenomic knowledge, and success of health outcomes research and policies on drug allergies.

Impact of an interstitial lung disease service in the diagnosis and management of interstitial lung disease in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: The current gold standard for diagnosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) involves an ILD clinic evaluation, followed by discussion in a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of ILD MDMs on the diagnosis and management of ILDs in Southeast Asia. We studied the clinical impact of the ILD service on the diagnosis and management of ILDs at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital in Singapore. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective review was done on 97 consecutive patients referred for evaluation to the ILD service from March 2016 to August 2017. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 67 ± 11 years. Gender distribution was almost equal (52% male), with a majority of never-smokers (63%). Mean forced vital capacity (FVC) was 1.81 ± 0.66 L (66% ± 20% predicted). The three commonest referral diagnoses were ILD of uncertain classification (n = 38, 39%), connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD) (n = 24, 25%) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (n = 16, 17%). Following evaluation by the ILD service, there was a change of diagnosis in 60 (62%) patients and a change of management in 71 (73%) patients. The majority of consensus MDM diagnoses were IPF (n = 35, 36%), CTD-ILD (n = 30, 30%) and others (n = 15, 15%). There was a significant prognostic separation between the IPF and non-IPF diagnoses made following evaluation by the ILD service. CONCLUSION: The ILD service allowed for more precise subtyping of various ILDs. This is particularly useful for IPF patients, who can benefit from antifibrotic therapies.

Comparison of elderly- and young-onset rheumatoid arthritis in an Asian cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic characteristics, clinical features, functional status and quality of life of elderly-onset (EORA) and young-onset (YORA) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in an Asian cohort. METHODS: We studied all RA patients in our prospective disease registry, utilizing baseline data. EORA was defined as disease onset at 60 years or older. We collected data from January 2001 to December 2012. RESULTS: There were 1206 patients in our cohort, of which 178 (14.8%) had EORA, with a mean age of onset of 66.7 ± 5.6 years. There were more males in the EORA than YORA group (23.0% vs. 14.7%, P = 0.005). EORA patients were diagnosed sooner after symptom onset and had a higher number of comorbidities (median 2 [inter-quartile range 1-3] vs. 1 (0-2), P < 0.001). They were less likely to be rheumatoid factor positive, had higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate values and lower hemoglobin concentrations. There was no significant difference in joint counts, Disease Activity Score of 28 joints activity score and prevalence of radiographic erosions. Though EORA patients had worse Health Assessment Questionnaire scores and poorer functional status than YORA ones, they had lower pain scores and higher scores in the general health and mental component summary of the Short Form-36. EORA patients received significantly lower numbers of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. CONCLUSIONS: EORA and YORA patients had different demographic characteristics. Although they had similar disease activities, EORA patients received less intensive treatment. EORA patients had a higher number of RA-related co-morbidities and poorer physical functioning but they coped better emotionally and mentally.