Intravenous cyclophosphamide improves functional outcomes in interstitial lung disease related to idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, toxicity and glucocorticoid (GC)-sparing effects of intravenous cyclophosphamide (iv CYC) with other immunosuppressive regimes as the induction treatment for Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy-Related Interstitial Lung Disease (IIM-ILD). METHODS: Observational comparative study of patients with IIM-ILD from the EPIMAR and Cruces cohorts. The main efficacy outcome was a 6 to 12-month improvement >10% in the forced vital capacity (FVC) from baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 47 patients were included: 22 (47%) in the CYC group and 25 (53%) in the non-CYC group (32% azathioprine, 28% GC alone, 20% mycophenolate, 16% calcineurin-inhibitors and methotrexate and 4% rituximab). 81% patients were female with a mean age of 50.4 years. FVC improvement was achieved by 64% patients in the CYC group vs. 32% in the non-CYC group (p = 0.03). In the logistic regression model, CYC was identified as the only independent predictor of FVC improvement (OR=3.97, 95% CI 1.07-14.75). Patients in the CYC group received more methyl-prednisolone pulses (MP) (59% vs. 28% in the non-CYC group, p = 0.03), less initial GCs doses >30 mg/d (19% vs. 77%, p = 0.001) and lower 6-month average doses of prednisone (11 mg/d vs. 31.1 mg/d, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: iv CYC showed better functional outcomes than other immunosuppressants in IIM-ILD. The additional use of MP is likely to potentiate the effects of CYC and allows lowering prednisone doses. Therefore, CYC in combination with MP could be considered as the first line induction therapy in IIM-ILD, without limiting its use to rapidly progressive, life-threatening or refractory disease.

[Ethical guides, criteria for admission in intensive care, palliative care. Multi-society recommendations for allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Guías éticas para la atención durante la pandemia COVID-19. Recomendaciones multisocietarias para asignación de recursos.

Guidelines on resource allocation, ethics, triage processes with admission and discharge criteria from critical care and palliative care units during the pandemia are here presented. The interdisciplinary and multi-society panel that prepared these guidelines represented by bioethicists and specialists linked to the end of life: clinicians, geriatricians, emergentologists, intensivists, and experts in palliative care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The available information indicates that approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 will develop mild symptoms and will not require hospital care, while 15% will require intermediate or general room care, and the remaining 5% will require assistance in intensive care units. The need to think about justice and establish ethical criteria for allocation patients arise in conditions of exceeding available resources, such as outbreaks of diseases and pandemics, with transparency being the main criterion for allocation. These guides recommend general criteria for the allocation of resources relies on bioethical considerations, rooted in Human Rights and based on the value of the dignity of the human person and substantial principles such as solidarity, justice and equity. The guides are recommendations of general scope and their usefulness is to accompany and sustain the technical and scientific decisions made by the different specialists in the care of critically ill patients, but given the dynamic nature of the pandemic, a process of permanent revision and adaptation of recommendations must be ensured.

Se presentan las guías sobre ética de asignación de recursos, procesos de triaje con criterios de ingreso y egreso de unidades de cuidados críticos y atención paliativa durante la pandemia. El panel interdisciplinario y multisocietario que las preparó estuvo representado por bioeticistas y por especialistas vinculados al fin de la vida: clínicos, geriatras, emergentólogos, intensivistas, expertos en cuidados paliativos y en reanimación cardiopulmonar. La información disponible indica que aproximadamente 80% de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollarán síntomas leves y no requerirán asistencia hospitalaria, mientras que 15% precisará cuidados intermedios o en salas generales, y el 5% restante requerirá de asistencia en unidades de cuidados intensivos. La necesidad de pensar en justicia y establecer criterios éticos de asignación surgen en condiciones de superación de los recursos disponibles, como en brotes de enfermedades y pandemias, siendo la transparencia el principal criterio para la asignación. Estas guías recomiendan criterios generales de asignación de recursos en base a consideraciones bioéticas, enraizadas en los Derechos Humanos y sustentadas en el valor de la dignidad de la persona humana y principios sustanciales como la solidaridad, la justicia y la equidad. Las guías son recomendaciones de alcance general y su utilidad consiste en acompañar y sostener las decisiones técnicas y científicas que tomen los distintos especialistas en la atención del paciente crítico, pero dado el carácter dinámico de la pandemia, debe asegurarse un proceso de revisión y readaptación permanente de las recomendaciones.

Guías éticas para la atención durante la pandemia COVID-19: Recomendaciones multisocietarias para asignación de recursos / Ethical guides, criteria for admission in intensive care, palliative care. Multi-society recommendations for allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic

Se presentan las guías sobre ética de asignación de recursos, procesos de triaje con criterios de ingreso y egreso de unidades de cuidados críticos y atención paliativa durante la pandemia. El panel interdisciplinario y multisocietario que las preparó estuvo representado por bioeticistas y por especialistas vinculados al fin de la vida: clínicos, geriatras, emergentólogos, intensivistas, expertos en cuidados paliativos y en reanimación cardiopulmonar. La información disponible indica que aproximadamente 80% de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollarán síntomas leves y no requerirán asistencia hospitalaria, mientras que 15% precisará cuidados intermedios o en salas generales, y el 5% restante requerirá de asistencia en unidades de cuidados intensivos. La necesidad de pensar en justicia y establecer criterios éticos de asignación surgen en condiciones de superación de los recursos disponibles, como en brotes de enfermedades y pandemias, siendo la transparencia el principal criterio para la asignación. Estas guías recomiendan criterios generales de asignación de recursos en base a consideraciones bioéticas, enraizadas en los Derechos Humanos y sustentadas en el valor de la dignidad de la persona humana y principios sustanciales como la solidaridad, la justicia y la equidad. Las guías son recomendaciones de alcance general y su utilidad consiste en acompañar y sostener las decisiones técnicas y científicas que tomen los distintos especialistas en la atención del paciente crítico, pero dado el carácter dinámico de la pandemia, debe asegurarse un proceso de revisión y readaptación permanente de las recomendaciones.

Guidelines on resource allocation, ethics, triage processes with admission and discharge criteria from critical care and palliative care units during the pandemia are here presented. The interdisciplinary and multi-society panel that prepared these guidelines represented by bioethicists and specialists linked to the end of life: clinicians, geriatricians, emergentologists, intensivists, and experts in palliative care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The available information indicates that approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 will develop mild symptoms and will not require hospital care, while 15% will require intermediate or general room care, and the remaining 5% will require assistance in intensive care units. The need to think about justice and establish ethical criteria for allocation patients arise in conditions of exceeding available resources, such as outbreaks of diseases and pandemics, with transparency being the main criterion for allocation. These guides recommend general criteria for the allocation of resources relies on bioethical considerations, rooted in Human Rights and based on the value of the dignity of the human person and substantial principles such as solidarity, justice and equity. The guides are recommendations of general scope and their usefulness is to accompany and sustain the technical and scientific decisions made by the different specialists in the care of critically ill patients, but given the dynamic nature of the pandemic, a process of permanent revision and adaptation of recommendations must be ensured.

Identification of Low-Risk Patients with Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism for Outpatient Therapy.

RATIONALE: Patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) deemed to be at low risk for early complications might be candidates for partial or complete outpatient treatment. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a clinical prediction rule that accurately identifies patients with PE and low risk of short-term complications and to compare its prognostic ability with two previously validated models (i.e., the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and the Simplified PESI [sPESI]) METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression of a large international cohort of patients with PE prospectively enrolled in the RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica) registry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All-cause mortality, recurrent PE, and major bleeding up to 10 days after PE diagnosis were determined. Of 18,707 eligible patients with acute symptomatic PE, 46 (0.25%) developed recurrent PE, 203 (1.09%) bled, and 471 (2.51%) died. Predictors included in the final model were chronic heart failure, recent immobilization, recent major bleeding, cancer, hypotension, tachycardia, hypoxemia, renal insufficiency, and abnormal platelet count. The area under receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.78) for the RIETE score, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73) for PESI (P < 0.05), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.73) for sPESI (P < 0.05). Our RIETE score outperformed the prognostic value of PESI in terms of net reclassification improvement (P < 0.001), integrated discrimination improvement (P < 0.001), and sPESI (net reclassification improvement, P < 0.001; integrated discrimination improvement, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We built a new score, based on widely available variables, that can be used to identify patients with PE at low risk of short-term complications, assisting in triage and potentially shortening duration of hospital stay.