Real life use of prostacyclin analog (iloprost), a multi-centric survey data from the Scleroderma study group Emilia Romagna (Sclero-RER) and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Iloprost is recommend worldwide for the treatment of RP and the healing of DUs. The aim of this study is to report the regimens of Iloprost administered in different rheumatological centers within the same regional Health System Methods: A questionnaire exploring different items related to the use of Iloprost was developed and reviewed by three expert rheumatologists. The questionnaire was distributed as an online survey to all local SSc referral centers in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Data are reported as percentage or median with interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. An updated review of world literature on this topic was also carried out. RESULTS: All the invited centers completed the survey. There were both local (8) and university hospitals (4). The majority (58%) had a rheumatologist as head physician. All centers used Iloprost: a single monthly administration was the most common treatment (75%). The cycle lasted 1 [IQR 1-2] days with a 0.5-2.0 ng/Kg/min dose according to the drug tolerance of the patients. There were overall 68 spots (beds, reclining armchair, or simple armchair); 2.0 [1.5-4.0] patients were able to receive Iloprost at the same time. University Hospitals had more physicians at their disposal than local hospitals but less paramedic personnel (respectively: 1.8 vs 1.2 physicians, 1.5 vs 2.1 nurses). CONCLUSIONS: These observations were in line with the majority of previous studies reporting different regimens, comparing similar (but not identical) dose and schedule administration, however, despite differences being at times substantial, no standard infusion method is yet available.

Diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the Emilia Romagna region: a prospective population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a population-based study in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic treatments. METHODS: 1087 patients with RA were enrolled; inclusion criteria were: newly diagnosed RA, already diagnosed RA with high disease activity (HDA) (DAS28≥4.2) starting biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), already diagnosed RA with HDA continuing with conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs). The following data were collected: demographics, clinical and laboratory features, imaging and prescribed drugs. All parameters except immunology and imaging (performed yearly) were repeated at each follow-up evaluations (after 3, 6 and 12 months, and thereafter every 12 months). In order to evaluate clinical response, the EULAR response criteria were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: 414 (38.1%) newly diagnosed patients with RA, 477 (43.9%) RA patients who started bDMARDs and 196 (18.0%) RA patients who continued with cDMARDs were enrolled from April 2012 to March 2015 at 12 Rheumatology Centres in the Emilia Romagna Region. Statistical analyses showed a relative risk ratio (RRR) for moderate response of 1.65 in RA patients who started bDMARDs (p=0.16) and 2.49 for newly diagnosed RA (p=0.01). Sex, age and Health Assessment Questionnaire were not statistically significant. A RRR of 2.00 has been confirmed for RA patients who started bDMARDs (p<0.0005) for a good response as well as 2.20 for newly diagnosed RA (p<0.0005). An increase in adverse events among bDMARDs was found, but when looking at infections or neoplasia, no differences were highlighted between RA which started bDMARDs and RA who continued with cDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are in line with already published papers from British and Swedish Registries: a greater likelihood to have a good response is demonstrated for not longstanding RA starting cDMARDs or RA with HDA when a bDMARD is started. Also a good safety profile is demonstrated.