Building national patient registries in Mexico: insights from the MexOMICS Consortium.

Objective: To introduce MexOMICS, a Mexican Consortium focused on establishing electronic databases to collect, cross-reference, and share health-related and omics data on the Mexican population. Methods: Since 2019, the MexOMICS Consortium has established three electronic-based registries: the Mexican Twin Registry (TwinsMX), Mexican Lupus Registry (LupusRGMX), and the Mexican Parkinson's Research Network (MEX-PD), designed and implemented using the Research Electronic Data Capture web-based application. Participants were enrolled through voluntary participation and on-site engagement with medical specialists. We also acquired DNA samples and Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans in subsets of participants. Results: The registries have successfully enrolled a large number of participants from a variety of regions within Mexico: TwinsMX (n = 2,915), LupusRGMX (n = 1,761) and MEX-PD (n = 750). In addition to sociodemographic, psychosocial, and clinical data, MexOMICS has collected DNA samples to study the genetic biomarkers across the three registries. Cognitive function has been assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in a subset of 376 MEX-PD participants. Furthermore, a subset of 267 twins have participated in cognitive evaluations with the Creyos platform and in MRI sessions acquiring structural, functional, and spectroscopy brain imaging; comparable evaluations are planned for LupusRGMX and MEX-PD. Conclusions: The MexOMICS registries offer a valuable repository of information concerning the potential interplay of genetic and environmental factors in health conditions among the Mexican population.

Not the same, but is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non- medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12 months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12 months after the switch (P > .05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS 28 after 12 months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non- biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Not the same, but ¿is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. / No es el mismo pero ¿es igual? Cycling de agentes biológicos en artritis reumatoide. Experiencia en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non-medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9years, ranging from 16 to 84years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12months after the switch (P>.05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS28 after 12months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non-biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus by the Mexican College of Rheumatology. / Guía de práctica clínica para el manejo del lupus eritematoso sistémico propuesta por el Colegio Mexicano de Reumatología.

There are national and international clinical practice guidelines for systemic lupus erythematosus treatment. Nonetheless, most of them are not designed for the Mexican population or are devoted only to the treatment of certain disease manifestations, like lupus nephritis, or are designed for some physiological state like pregnancy. The Mexican College of Rheumatology aimed to create clinical practice guidelines that included the majority of the manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus, and also incorporated guidelines in controversial situations like vaccination and the perioperative period. The present document introduces the «Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus¼ proposed by the Mexican College of Rheumatology, which could be useful mostly for non-rheumatologist physicians who need to treat patients with systemic lupus erythematosus without having the appropriate training in the field of rheumatology. In these guidelines, the reader will find recommendations on the management of general, articular, kidney, cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, hematologic and gastrointestinal manifestations, and recommendations on vaccination and treatment management during the perioperative period.