Early restoration of immune and vascular phenotypes in systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis patients after B cell depletion.

This translational multi-centre study explored early changes in serologic variables following B lymphocyte depletion by rituximab (RTX) treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and investigated in vitro effects on the activity of other immune cells and the vascular endothelium. Eighty-five SLE patients, seventy-five RA patients and ninety healthy donors were enrolled. Two additional cohorts of selected SLE and RA patients were treated with RTX for 3 months. Changes in circulating levels of inflammatory mediators, oxidative stress markers and NETosis-derived bioproducts were evaluated. Serum miRNomes were identified by next-generation sequencing, and RTX-induced changes were delineated. Mechanistic in vitro studies were performed to assess activity profiles. Altered inflammatory, oxidative and NETosis-derived biomolecules were found in SLE and RA patients, closely interconnected and associated to specific miRNA profiles. RTX treatment reduced SLE and RA patients' disease activity, linked to a prominent alteration in those biomolecules and the reversal of altered regulating miRNAs. In vitro studies showed inhibition of NETosis and decline of pro-inflammatory profiles of leucocytes and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) after B cell depletion. This study provides evidence supporting an early RTX-induced re-setting of the pro-inflammatory status in SLE and RA, involving a re-establishment of the homeostatic equilibrium in immune system and the vascular wall.

Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients' association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. RESULTS: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.

Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project. / Desarrollo y viabilidad de cuatro checklists para la evaluación de la comorbilidad en pacientes con artritis reumatoide, espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica: Proyecto GECOAI.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients' association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. RESULTS: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.

Desarrollo y viabilidad de cuatro checklists para la evaluación de la comorbilidad en pacientes con artritis reumatoide, espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica: Proyecto GECOAI / Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project

Objetivo: Desarrollar y analizar la viabilidad en la práctica diaria de cuatro checklists relacionados con la comorbilidad, comunes para pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR), espondiloartritis axial (EspAax) y artritis psoriásica (APs). Métodos: Se estableció un grupo multidisciplinar de expertos en comorbilidad. Se revisaron los proyectos GECOAR, GECOAX y GECOAP, y se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en Medline sobre comorbilidad en AR, EspAax y APs, para seleccionar las comorbilidades más relevantes y comunes a las tres enfermedades. Con estos resultados y los obtenidos de un grupo focal de pacientes, en una reunión de grupo nominal, los expertos generaron unos checklists preliminares. Estos listados preliminares se modificaron, tras una evaluación externa por una asociación de pacientes y otra de profesionales de la salud relacionados con la reumatología, para generar los checklists definitivos. Finalmente, se realizó un estudio transversal, en el que ocho profesionales de la salud evaluaron tres checklists en cinco pacientes con AR, cinco con EspAax y cinco con APs. Resultados: Se diseñaron cuatro checklists de comorbilidad, tres para profesionales de la salud (uno sobre evaluación de la comorbilidad presente, otro sobre prevención/promoción de la salud y un último con los criterios de derivación a otros profesionales), y otro para pacientes. El estudio de viabilidad mostró que son sencillos, claros y útiles para su uso en la práctica clínica habitual. Conclusiones: El uso de checklists específicos y comunes para pacientes con AR, EspAax y APs es factible y puede contribuir favorablemente en su pronóstico así como en la práctica clínica habitual.(AU)

Objective: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients’ association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. Results: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. Conclusions: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.(AU)

[Medication errors in a hospital emergency department: study of the current situation and critical points for improving patient safety]. / Errores de medicación en un servicio de urgencias hospitalario: estudio de situación para mejorar la seguridad de los pacientes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of medication errors and incident types in a tertiary-care hospital emergency department. To quantify and classify medication errors and identify critical points where measures should be implemented to improve patient safety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective direct-observation study to detect errors made in June and July 2016. RESULTS: The overall error rate was 23.7%. The most common errors were made while medications were administered (10.9%). We detected 1532 incidents: 53.6% on workdays (P=.001), 43.1% during the afternoon/evening shift (P=.004), and 43.1% in observation areas (P=.004). CONCLUSION: The medication error rate was significant. Most errors and incidents occurred during the afternoon/evening shift and in the observation area. Most errors were related to administration of medications.

OBJETIVO: Conocer la tasa total de errores de medicación (EM) y de incidencias en el proceso de utilización de los medicamentos en el servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH) de un hospital terciario que se producen e identificar los puntos críticos asociados para implantar medidas de mejora. METODO: Estudio prospectivo por observación directa para detectar EM entre los meses de junio y julio de 2016. RESULTADOS: La tasa de EM total fue del 23,7%, y los EM más frecuentes fueron los referentes al proceso de administración (10,9%). Se detectaron 1.532 incidencias, el 53,6% en días laborales (p = 0,001), 43,1% en turno de tarde (p = 0,004) y 43,1% en salas de observación (p = 0,004). CONCLUSIONES: La tasa de EM fue significativa, en su mayoría en el turno de tarde y en la sala de observación, así como la de las incidencias. Las más frecuentes lo fueron en relación con la administración de los medicamentos.

Errores de medicación en un servicio de urgencias hospitalario: estudio de situación para mejorar la seguridad de los pacientes / Medication errors in a hospital emergency department: study of the current situation and critical points for improving patient safety

Objetivos. Conocer la tasa total de errores de medicación (EM) y de incidencias en el proceso de utilización de los medicamentos en el servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH) de un hospital terciario que se producen e identificar los puntos críticos asociados para implantar medidas de mejora. Método. Estudio prospectivo por observación directa para detectar EM entre los meses de junio y julio de 2016. Resultados. La tasa de EM total fue del 23,7%, y los EM más frecuentes fueron los referentes al proceso de administración (10,9%). Se detectaron 1.532 incidencias, el 53,6% en días laborales (p = 0,001), 43,1% en turno de tarde (p = 0,004) y 43,1% en salas de observación (p = 0,004). Conclusiones. La tasa de EM fue significativa, en su mayoría en el turno de tarde y en la sala de observación, así como la de las incidencias. Las más frecuentes lo fueron en relación con la administración de los medicamentos (AU)

Objectives. To determine the frequency of medication errors and incident types in a tertiary-care hospital emergency department. To quantify and classify medication errors and identify critical points where measures should be implemented to improve patient safety. Method. Prospective direct-observation study to detect errors made in June and July 2016. Results. The overall error rate was 23.7%. The most common errors were made while medications were administered (10.9%). We detected 1532 incidents: 53.6% on workdays (P=.001), 43.1% during the afternoon/evening shift (P=.004), and 43.1% in observation areas (P=.004). Conclusions. The medication error rate was significant. Most errors and incidents occurred during the afternoon/evening shift and in the observation area. Most errors were related to administration of medications (AU)

Long-term TNF-alpha blockade in patients with amyloid A amyloidosis complicating rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with amyloid A amyloidosis. METHODS: Multicenter, controlled, dynamic prospective cohort study of 36 patients with amyloid A amyloidosis (94% kidney involvement) treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (drug exposure of 102.97 patient-years). As an external control group, 35 propensity score-matched non-amyloid patients were chosen from the Base de Datos de Productos Biológicos de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología registry. The end points were kidney response and progression, anti-tumor necrosis factor continuation rate, patient survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, a kidney response was observed in 12 of 22 patients (54.5%) and a kidney progression was observed in 6 of 36 patients (17%). The kidney amyloidosis remained stable in 16 of 36 patients (44%). The level of acute phase reactants diminished but did not reach the normal level. The continuation rates of anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs among patients with amyloid A amyloidosis after 1, 2, 3, and 4 or more years were 80%, 80%, 61%, and 52%, respectively, comparable to controls. The 5-year cumulative survival of amyloid A amyloidosis cases was 90.6%, and the 10-year survival was 78.5%. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, the duration of amyloidosis and the level of proteinuria at the onset of anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment were independent predictors of treatment failure, whereas the level of proteinuria was the only factor that predicts mortality. Most adverse events were similar in both groups, although the number of infections was 3 times higher in amyloid A amyloidosis cases. CONCLUSION: Anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs are effective in treating amyloid A amyloidosis, although they might increase the risk of infection.