Artropatía del apicultor / Beekeeper' arthropathy

En los apicultores se ha descrito una artropatía inflamatoria de etiología desconocida pero relacionada con su actividad profesional. Se expone el caso de un apicultor que tras la picadura de abeja presentó una artritis de la articulación interfalángica del primer dedo de la mano izquierda. Aunque el curso clínico subagudo y los hallazgos de la RMN obligaban a plantear el diagnóstico diferencial con un proceso infeccioso, el resto de pruebas analíticas, de imagen y la evolución, junto al antecedente de episodio similar unos años antes en un dedo de otra mano tras la picadura de abeja, permitió el diagnóstico de esta entidad

An acute inflammatory arthritis of unknown cause has been described in beekeepers in relation to their work with the hives. We present the case of a beekeeper who, after a bee sting, developed arthritis of the interphalangeal joint of the first finger of his left hand. Although the subacute clinical course and the magnetic resonance imaging findings required the differential diagnosis with an infectious process, the rest of the laboratory tests. other imaging studies and the course, together with a history of a similar episode a few years earlier on a finger of the other hand after a bee sting, enabled us to diagnosis this condition

Beekeeper' arthropathy. / Artropatía del apicultor.

An acute inflammatory arthritis of unknown cause has been described in beekeepers in relation to their work with the hives. We present the case of a beekeeper who, after a bee sting, developed arthritis of the interphalangeal joint of the first finger of his left hand. Although the subacute clinical course and the magnetic resonance imaging findings required the differential diagnosis with an infectious process, the rest of the laboratory tests. other imaging studies and the course, together with a history of a similar episode a few years earlier on a finger of the other hand after a bee sting, enabled us to diagnosis this condition.

Comparative Study of Infliximab Versus Adalimumab in Refractory Uveitis due to Behçet's Disease: National Multicenter Study of 177 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of infliximab (IFX) versus adalimumab (ADA) as a first-line biologic drug over 1 year of treatment in a large series of patients with refractory uveitis due to Behçet's disease (BD). METHODS: We conducted an open-label multicenter study of IFX versus ADA for BD-related uveitis refractory to conventional nonbiologic treatment. IFX or ADA was chosen as the first-line biologic agent based on physician and patient agreement. Patients received 3-5 mg/kg intravenous IFX at 0, 2, and 6 weeks and every 4-8 weeks thereafter, or 40 mg subcutaneous ADA every other week without a loading dose. Ocular parameters were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The study included 177 patients (316 affected eyes), of whom 103 received IFX and 74 received ADA. There were no significant baseline differences between treatment groups in main demographic features, previous therapy, or ocular sign severity. After 1 year of therapy, we observed an improvement in all ocular parameters in both groups. However, patients receiving ADA had significantly better outcomes in some parameters, including improvement in anterior chamber inflammation (92.31% versus 78.18% for IFX; P = 0.06), improvement in vitritis (93.33% versus 78.95% for IFX; P = 0.04), and best-corrected visual acuity (mean ± SD 0.81 ± 0.26 versus 0.67 ± 0.34 for IFX; P = 0.001). A nonsignificant difference was seen for macular thickness (mean ± SD 250.62 ± 36.85 for ADA versus 264.89 ± 59.74 for IFX; P = 0.15), and improvement in retinal vasculitis was similar between the 2 groups (95% for ADA versus 97% for IFX; P = 0.28). The drug retention rate was higher in the ADA group (95.24% versus 84.95% for IFX; P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Although both IFX and ADA are efficacious in refractory BD-related uveitis, ADA appears to be associated with better outcomes than IFX after 1 year of follow-up.

Hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) in patients with spondyloarthritis: results of the Cardiovascular in Rheumatology (CARMA) project.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is one of the main causes of morbi-mortality in spondyloarthritis (SpA), partially explained by traditional CV risk factors. Information on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a non-conventional risk factor, in SpA is scarce. In this study we assessed the prevalence of hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) in SpA patients and analysed the possible related factors. METHODS: A baseline analysis was made of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients and controls included in the CARMA project (CARdiovascular in RheuMAtology), a 10-year prospective study evaluating the risk of CV events in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed using hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) (Lp(a) >50 mg/dl) as a dependent variable and adjusting for confounding factors. RESULTS: 19.2% (95% CI: 16.80-22.05) of the SpA patients [20.7% (95% CI: 16.91-24.82) of those with AS and 17.7% (95% CI: 14.15-21.75) of those with PsA] and 16.7% (95% CI: 13.23-20.86) of the controls had hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) (p=0.326). Adjusting for age and sex, SpA patients were more likely to have hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) than controls (OR: 1.43, 95%CI: 1.00-2.04; p=0.05), especially those with AS (OR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.18-2.77; p=0.007). In the adjusted model, apolipoprotein B in all patients, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in AS, and female sex in PsA, were associated with hyperlipoproteinaemia(a). No disease-specific factors associated with hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: SpA patients show a moderately increased risk of hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) compared to controls, especially those with AS. Lp(a) determination may be of interest to improve the CV risk assessment in SpA patients.

Color Doppler and spectral Doppler ultrasound detection of active sacroiliitis in spondyloarthritis compared to physical examination as gold standard.

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) involvement is a distinctive feature of spondyloarthritis (SpA). The main objective of this study was to assess the validity of color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) in SIJ. This was a cross-sectional, blinded, case-control study of 108 cases divided into three groups: (a) 53 SpA patients with inflammatory back pain (IBP); (b) 28 SpA patients with no IBP; and (c) 27 healthy mechanical lumbar pain subjects. Physical examinations of the SIJs were assessed as positive or negative in each SIJ and were used as the gold standard. SIJs were examined with CDUS and spectral Doppler, and the SIJs were assessed as positive when both color Doppler and the resistance index (RI) were less than the cut-off point within the SIJs area. A total of 108 cases (53 female; mean age 36 ± 10 years old) were studied. The physical examination of the SIJs was positive in 38 patients (59 SIJs). Ultrasound detected Doppler signal within the SIJs in 37 cases (58 SIJs): 33 of them had symptomatic SpA (52 SIJs), 3 of them had asymptomatic SpA (5 SIJs), and 1 was a healthy control (1 SIJ). The accuracy of CDUS, when compared to physical SIJ examination, at the patient level in the overall group had a sensitivity of 70.3%, a specificity of 85.7%, a positive likelihood ratio of 4.9, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.36. For the spectral Doppler RI, with an optimal cut-off point ≤0.75, the sensitivity was 76.2%, and the specificity was 77.8%. CDUS of SIJs seems to be a feasible and valid method for detecting active inflammation in patients with SpA.

Calprotectin in rheumatoid arthritis : association with disease activity in a cross-sectional and a longitudinal cohort.

BACKGROUND: Calprotectin is potentially a more sensitive biomarker of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than conventional acute-phase proteins such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) because it directly reflects inflammation in the synovium and synovial fluid rather than systemic inflammatory activity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate relationships between serum calprotectin levels, disease activity, and response to treatment. Calprotectin was also investigated as a predictive marker of clinical response. METHODS: This observational study included selected cohorts of patients with RA treated at La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. Associations between serum calprotectin levels and clinical and laboratory parameters were analyzed in a cross-sectional cohort of 60 patients with varying disease activity, and changes in calprotectin levels in response to treatment with infliximab were analyzed at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment in a longitudinal cohort of 20 patients with very active disease. RESULTS: In the cross-sectional cohort, calprotectin levels correlated with rheumatoid factor levels (r = 0.25; p < 0.05) but not with titers of antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptide. Significant correlations were also observed between calprotectin levels and the 28 swollen joint count (28-SJC), Disease Activity Score based on a 28-joint count (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), ESR, and CRP levels. In the longitudinal cohort, calprotectin levels at baseline were not predictive of response to treatment but significantly decreased during treatment in responders (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Calprotectin levels strongly correlate with clinical and laboratory assessments of joint inflammation and also decrease in response to treatment, indicating that calprotectin is a promising marker for assessment and monitoring of disease activity in patients with RA. Investigations are required to further evaluate its diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic potential.

Septic arthritis.

This article presents a review of the current approach to diagnostic and therapeutic conditions of septic arthritis. Acute septic arthritis is an uncommon, but potentially fatal, emergency. Early diagnosis as well as prompt and effective treatment are essential to avoid either irreversible joint destruction or even death. The clinical features of this condition are different in neonates, children and adults. The definitive diagnosis of septic arthritis requires the direct demonstration of bacteria in synovial fluid or on positive culture of the pathogen. A combination of antibiotics and the prompt removal of purulent material from the affected joint constitutes the mainstay of successful treatment. In addition, this article discusses, in particular, prosthetic joint infection and gonococcal arthritis.

Rituximab en artritis reumatoide: una revision sistematica de eficacia y seguridad / Rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of efficacy and safety

Introducción: El objetivo de la revision sistematica fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad del tratamiento con RTX en pacientes con AR para la elaboracion del Documento de consenso de uso de rituximab en artritis reumatoide, un documento con recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia5 sobre el empleo del farmaco en situaciones clinicas dificiles en practica clinica habitual. Metodología: Se realizaron busquedas de los trabajos publicados desde enero de 2003 hasta septiembre de 2009 en Medline, EMBASE y la Cochrane Library y revision manual de los resumenes de los congresos de EULAR y ACR de 2003 a 2009 y de datos proporcionados por Roche Pharma. En la estrategia de busqueda se emplearon los siguientes terminos: «Rituximab», «Rheumatoid arthritis», «Anti-CD20», «Biologics». Dos autores (BHC yMGH)efectuaron la busqueda bibliografica por titulo y resumen. Despues dos autores (BHC y RAA) calificaron los trabajos segun la escala GRADE y los seleccionaron tras su revision en extenso. La extraccion de los datos para el analisis se realizo en formato en papel. Las medidas de desenlace evaluadas fueron para eficacia las propuestas por OMERACT13 (Outcome Measurements in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials) y el grupo Cochrane de Estudio de Enfermedades Musculoesqueleticas, relevantes en practica clinica. Para seguridad se evaluaron: mortalidad, presencia de infecciones graves, efectos adversos graves, retiradas del estudio por cualquier causa, retiradas del estudio por efectos adversos graves, retiradas del estudio por reacciones a la infusion y reacciones graves relacionadas con la infusion. El analisis estadistico se realizo con el calculo del riesgo relativo y la odds ratio para variables dicotomicas (OR) y de la diferencia media entre el valor basal frente al final para variables continuas, se estimo la diferencia absoluta de riesgo con el programa RevMan 519 y el numero de pacientes necesario que tratar con las formulas y la calculadora de Cates20. Resultados: El RTX es un medicamento eficaz en el tratamiento de tres grupos de pacientes con artritis reumatoide: en fallo a MTX, fallo a anti-TNF y en pacientes sin exposicion previa a MTX. Es necesario tratar a 7 (5-10) pacientes con RTX frente a placebo para obtener una respuesta ACR70; 9 (6-15) para conseguir un DAS28 < 2,6 y 5 (4-8) para una mejoria en el HAQ> 0,2. La seguridad del farmaco fue similar a la del placebo, excepto para reacciones a la primera infusion en donde se necesita tratar 12 (8-26) pacientes con RTX frente a placebo para observar alguna reaccion a la primera infusion con premedicacion con corticoides. Las reacciones graves a la infusion tuvieron una incidencia de 0,7% en los pacientes del grupo tratado con RTX. No fue posible identificar un mayor incremento en el numero de infecciones graves posiblemente debido a problemas metodologicos, no obstante el riesgo de desarrollar infecciones graves en pacientes tratados con RTX parece ser comparable al de otros anti-TNF y biologicos (AU)

Introduction: The aim of the systematic review was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients, as part of the Consensus on the use of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis. A document with evidence based recommendations5. Methods: All papers published from January 2003 to September 2009 were reviewed in a systematic way in Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library database. The Mesh terms used were: «Rituximab», «Rheumatoid arthritis», «and Anti-CD20», «Biologics». The abstracts of the EULAR and ACR congress of 2003 to 2009 were also reviewed, as well data of Roche Pharma. Two rheumatologists (BHC y MGH) made the bibliographic review by title and summary of each work. Two authors (BHC y RAA) selected them by quality according the GRADE SCALE after they review. The data were collected in paper. The outcomes evaluated were of efficacy in agreement with OMERACT13 (Outcome Measurements in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials) and The Musculoskeletal Cochrane Study Group. The outcomes of safety evaluated were: mortality, severe infections, severe adverse events, withdraw for any cause, for severe adverse events, and for infusion related reactions. The review was conducted with Cochrane methodology. The odds ratio and relative risk for dichotomist variables; and mean difference between baseline and final measurements for continuous variables, and risk differences were calculated with RevMan 519. The number of patients needed to treat was calculated with Cates’ calculator20. Results: RTX is an effective drug in three groups of patients with RA: patients who fail to MTX, those who fail anti-TNF and in patients with no prior exposure to MTX. It is necessary to treat 7 (5-10) patients with RTX vs. placebo to obtain an ACR70 response; 9 (6-15) to achieve a DAS28 < 2.6; and 5 (4-8) to achieve a HAQ improvement >0.2. Safety of the drug was similar to that of placebo except for infusion reactions where 12 (8-26) patients need to be treated with RTX vs. placebo to see a reaction to the first infusion with steroid premedication. Severe adverse events to the infusion had an incidence of 0.7% in patients of the RTX treated group. It was impossible to identify a larger increase in the number of severe infections, probably due to methodological problems, however, the risk of developing infections in patients treated with RTX seems to be comparable to that of other anti-TNF and biologics (AU)

[Rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of efficacy and safety]. / Rituximab en artritis reumatoide: una revisión sistemática de eficacia y seguridad.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the systematic review was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients, as part of the Consensus on the use of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis. A document with evidence based recommendations. METHODS: All papers published from January 2003 to September 2009 were reviewed in a systematic way in Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library database. The Mesh terms used were: "Rituximab", "Rheumatoid arthritis", "and Anti-CD20", "Biologics". The abstracts of the EULAR and ACR congress of 2003 to 2009 were also reviewed, as well data of Roche Pharma. Two rheumatologists (BHC y MGH) made the bibliographic review by title and summary of each work. Two authors (BHC y RAA) selected them by quality according the GRADE SCALE after they review. The data were collected in paper. The outcomes evaluated were of efficacy in agreement with OMERACT (Outcome Measurements in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials) and The Musculoskeletal Cochrane Study Group. The outcomes of safety evaluated were: mortality, severe infections, severe adverse events, withdraw for any cause, for severe adverse events, and for infusion related reactions. The review was conducted with Cochrane methodology. The odds ratio and relative risk for dichotomist variables; and mean difference between baseline and final measurements for continuous variables, and risk differences were calculated with RevMan 5. The number of patients needed to treat was calculated with Cates' calculator. RESULTS: RTX is an effective drug in three groups of patients with RA: patients who fail to MTX, those who fail anti-TNF and in patients with no prior exposure to MTX. It is necessary to treat 7 (5-10) patients with RTX vs. placebo to obtain an ACR70 response; 9 (6-15) to achieve a DAS28 < 2.6; and 5 (4-8) to achieve a HAQ improvement > 0.2. Safety of the drug was similar to that of placebo except for infusion reactions where 12 (8-26) patients need to be treated with RTX vs. placebo to see a reaction to the first infusion with steroid premedication. Severe adverse events to the infusion had an incidence of 0.7% in patients of the RTX treated group. It was impossible to identify a larger increase in the number of severe infections, probably due to methodological problems, however, the risk of developing infections in patients treated with RTX seems to be comparable to that of other anti-TNF and biologics.

[Consensus on the Use of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. A document with evidence-based recommendations. Grupo de Expertos en Rituximab. ]. / Consenso de uso de rituximab en artritis reumatoide. Un documento con recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia.

INTRODUCTION: Rituximab has been employed successfully for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). However, its particular mechanism of action, as well as a lack of concrete guidelines for its management have generated doubts on its use. OBJECTIVE: To establish recommendations that facilitates the use of rituximab in common clinical practice. METHODS: In a first Delphi round, 9 expert rheumatologists got together to develop questions on those subjects generating most doubts on the efficacy and safety of the drug. These were adapted to perform a systematic review of the evidence, which was presented in a second meeting. Nominal groups were formed to respond to each question and give a recommendation. These recommendations were presented in a second Delphi round to a larger group of experts in rheumatology. Once again recommendations were discussed, modified and voted upon. Once approved, a vote on the degree of agreement for each recommendation was carried out. RESULTS: 17 recommendations were established, 10 regarding efficacy and 7 safety. All of the efficacy recommendations except 3 presented a good or moderate degree of evidence. Among the safety recommendations, 3 had a good or moderate degree of evidence while in the rest it was indirect, scarce or non-existent and a product of expert recommendation. The degree of agreement between experts was elevated for most of the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations attempt to clear doubts on the use of rituximab and establish guidelines for its use in daily practice. Efficacy recommendations have a high degree of evidence, allowing the clinician to be guided in therapeutic decisions. Safety recommendations have a lower degree of evidence.

Consenso de uso de rituximab en artritis reumatoide. Un documento con recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia / Consensus on the use of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. A document with evidence based recommendations

Introducción. El rituximab se ha empleado con éxito en el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide (AR). Sin embargo, su particular mecanismo de acción, así como la ausencia de pautas concretas en su manejo, hace que se hayan generado dudas sobre su utilización. Objetivo. Establecer recomendaciones que faciliten el empleo de rituximab en la práctica clínica habitual. Métodos. En una primera ronda Delphi, se reunieron nueve reumatólogos expertos que desarrollaron preguntas sobre los temas con mayor duda sobre eficacia y seguridad del fármaco. Estas se adecuaron para hacer una revisión sistemática de la evidencia, que se presentó en una segunda reunión. Se formaron grupos nominales para dar respuesta a cada pregunta y emitir la recomendación. Estas recomendaciones fueron presentadas en una segunda ronda Delphi a un grupo ampliado de reumatólogos expertos. De nuevo se discutieron, se modificaron y se votaron las recomendaciones. Una vez aprobada cada recomendación, se votó el grado de acuerdo. Resultados. Se establecieron 17 recomendaciones: diez de eficacia y siete de seguridad. Todas las recomendaciones de eficacia, excepto tres, presentaron un nivel de evidencia bueno o moderado. Entre las recomendaciones de seguridad, tres presentaron un nivel de evidencia bueno o moderado, mientras que para el resto la evidencia fue indirecta, escasa o nula y son producto de las recomendaciones de los expertos. El grado de acuerdo entre expertos fue elevado para la mayoría de las recomendaciones. Conclusiones. Estas recomendaciones pretenden aclarar dudas sobre el uso de rituximab y establecer pautas de empleo en la práctica clínica. Las recomendaciones de eficacia tienen un nivel de evidencia alto y permiten guiar al médico en decisiones terapéuticas. Las recomendaciones de seguridad tienen un nivel de evidencia menor (AU)

Introduction. Rituximab has been employed successfully for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). However, its particular mechanism of action, as well as a lack of concrete guidelines for its management have generated doubts on its use. Objective. To establish recommendations that facilitates the use of rituximab in common clinical practice. Methods. In a first Delphi round, 9 expert rheumatologists got together to develop questions on those subjects generating most doubts on the efficacy and safety of the drug. These were adapted to perform a systematic review of the evidence, which was presented in a second meeting. Nominal groups were formed to respond to each question and give a recommendation. These recommendations were presented in a second Delphi round to a larger group of experts in rheumatology. Once again recommendations were discussed, modified and voted upon. Once approved, a vote on the degree of agreement for each recommendation was carried out. Results. 17 recommendations were established, 10 regarding efficacy and 7 safety. All of the efficacy recommendations except 3 presented a good or moderate degree of evidence. Among the safety recommendations, 3 had a good or moderate degree of evidence while in the rest it was indirect, scarce or non-existent and a product of expert recommendation. The degree of agreement between experts was elevated for most of the recommendations. Conclusions. These recommendations attempt to clear doubts on the use of rituximab and establish guidelines for its use in daily practice. Efficacy recommendations have a high degree of evidence, allowing the clinician to be guided in therapeutic decisions. Safety recommendations have a lower degree of evidence (AU)