Does Eta Protein Differentiate Rheumatoid Arthritis from Psoriatic Arthritis?

AIM: The clinical symptoms and laboratory markers of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) can be very similar, so making a differential diagnosis between these two diseases is often difficult. Serological parameters to be used in differential diagnosis can guide the clinician. This study aimed to investigate the usability of 14-3-3η (eta) protein as a biomarker in the differential diagnosis of PsA and RA, and the relationships between eta protein and disease activity scores and joint erosions in PsA and RA. METHODS: 54 PsA patients, 53 RA patients, and 56 healthy individuals were included in this study. The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked ImunoSorbent Assay) kit was used as a quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay technique to detect human eta protein levels. Receiver- operating Characteristic (ROC) curves analysis was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the eta protein. RESULTS: Eta protein levels were found to be significantly higher in the RA group than in the PsA [B: -0.341, OR (95% CI): 0.711 (0.556-0.909), p: 0.007] and control [B: -0.225, OR (95% CI): 0.798 (0.641-0.995), p: 0.045] groups. Eta protein median values were significantly higher in patients with joint erosion than in those without [ß= 0.151, OR (95% CI): 1.163 (1.003-1.349), p: 0.046]. CONCLUSION: Eta protein levels are higher in the serum of RA patients than PsA and are associated with joint erosion. Eta protein may be a potential biomarker in the differential diagnosis of RA and PsA. It may represent a possible therapeutic step in the pathophysiological pathways in the development of joint erosion.

Clinical course and prognostic factors of COVID-19 infection in patients with chronic inflammatory-rheumatic disease: A retrospective, case-control study.

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the prognosis of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection in patients with the chronic inflammatory-rheumatic disease and evaluate the effects of immunosuppressive drugs on the prognosis, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings and hospitalization periods of the rheumatic patients with COVID-19 infection. Patients and methods: Between April 2020 and March 2021, a total of 101 patients (30 males, 71 females; mean age: 48±14.4 years; range, 46 to 48 years) with the rheumatic diseases diagnosed with COVID-19 infection were included. A total of 102 age- and sex-matched patients (35 males, 67 females; mean age: 44±14.4 years; range, 28 to 44 years) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and had no history of rheumatic disease in the same period were included as the control group. Data including demographic characteristics of the patients, presence of any symptoms of COVID-19 disease, laboratory data at the time of diagnosis, and treatments administered were collected. Results: The rate of hospitalization was higher in 38 (37%) patients without rheumatic diseases than in 31 (31%) patients with rheumatic diseases (p=0.324). The rate of lung infiltration on radiographic examination was higher in patients without rheumatic diseases (40% vs. 49%) (p=0.177). COVID-19 infection symptoms such as anosmia 45 (45%), ageusia 51 (50%), shortness of breath 45(45%), nausea 29 (29%), vomiting 16 (16%), diarrhea 25 (25%) and myalgia-arthralgia 81 (80%) were higher in patients with rheumatic diseases. In terms of laboratory values, lymphocyte count (p=0.031) was statistically higher in patients without rheumatic diseases. Hydroxychloroquine (35%), oseltamivir 10 (10%), antibiotics 27 (26%), acetylsalicylic acid 52 (51%), and supplementary oxygen 25 (25%) treatments which used to cure COVID 19 infection were administered more in patients without rheumatic diseases. The number of treatments administered was higher in patients without rheumatic diseases (p<0.001). Conclusion: Patients with the chronic inflammatory-rheumatic disease have more symptoms due to COVID-19 infection, but the disease course is not poor and hospitalization rates are lower.

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Spondyloarthropathies.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the clinical features, predictive factors associated with severe disease, and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and report data on the comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 between patients with inflammatory bowel disease and spondyloarthropathies. METHODS: A total of 101 patients with inflammatory bowel disease and spondyloarthropathies who had confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographics, comorbidities, immunosuppressive treatments, and the impact of immunosuppression on negative outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 47 (38-57) years. The most common rheumatologic diagnosis was ankylosing spondylitis (n = 24), psoriatic arthritis (n = 17), and reactive arthritis (n = 1). In the inflammatory bowel disease group, 47 patients had ulcerative colitis, 11 Crohn's disease, and 1 unclassified. The most commonly used treatments were biologics (55%) in the spondyloarthropathies group and aminosalicylates (66.1%) in the inflammatory bowel disease group. Overall, 18.8% of the patients required hospitalization, 5% developed severe complications, and 2% died. There were no significant differences in coronavirus disease 2019-related negative outcomes between spondyloarthropathies and inflammatory bowel disease patients. The median age was higher in the patients who required hospitalization [57 (46-66) vs 47 (38-57) years, P=.008]. Bilateral opacities on chest radiographs were more common in the patients who required hospitalization in the spondyloarthropathies group [88.9% vs 14.3%, P=.016]. Comorbidity was significantly associated with hospitalization in the inflammatory bowel disease group (P ≤ .05). Baseline therapy with biologics or immunosuppressives was not associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes. CONCLUSION: Older age, comorbidities, and bilateral ground-glass opacities were associated with adverse outcomes, whereas specific immune-mediated inflammatory disease diagnoses or immunosuppressive treatments were not.

The Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients with Behçet's Disease: A Series of 7 Cases and Brief Review of the Literature.

Conventional debates surrounding the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 still continue in the literature. Colchicine is one of the recommended agents in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, but there are also studies giving negative opinions for the said agent. Some researchers suggest that those patients using colchicine have milder clinic symptoms. Behçet's disease is a multisystemic disease with an uncertain etiopathogenesis that is characterized by chronic inflammatory vasculitis. Autoimmunity is believed to play a key role in the pathogenesis of Behçet's disease. Immunomodulator, corticosteroid, and immunosuppressive drugs are used in its treatment. Seven Behçet's patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were presented in this study, and the drugs used, prognosis, accompanying diseases, hospitalization, and complications were discussed in the light of the literature.

The effects of inpatient versus outpatient spa therapy on pain, anxiety, and quality of life in elderly patients with generalized osteoarthritis: a pilot study.

This study aimed to investigate the effect of inpatient vs outpatient spa therapy on pain, quality of life, and anxiety in elderly patients with generalized osteoarthritis. A total of 150 patients were randomized into three groups. Group I was given medical treatment, group II was treated as outpatients, and group III was treated as inpatient spa therapy. Assessments were made using the Pain (VAS), EQ-5D-3L Scale, and State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) at the beginning of treatment (W0), at the end of treatment (W2), and at the fourth week after treatment (W6). The comparison of outpatient spa group and etodolac treatment group showed that outpatient spa group was superior to etodolac treatment group in all evaluated parameters at W2 vs W0 and W6 vs W0. The comparison of inpatient spa group and etodolac treatment group showed that inpatient spa group was superior to etodolac treatment group in all evaluated parameters at W2 vs W0 and W6 vs W0. The comparison of inpatient spa group and outpatient spa group showed that inpatient spa group was superior to outpatient spa group in all evaluated parameters except STAI-TXII at W2 vs W0 and in all evaluated parameters W6 vs W0. Spa therapy, either as an outpatient or inpatient basis, may have a positive effect on pain, anxiety, and quality of life in geriatric patients with generalized osteoarthritis. The inpatient spa therapy may be more beneficial than outpatient spa therapy. When the side effects of drug treatments are emphasized, spa therapy may be considered as an interesting option for elderly with osteoarthritis.