- 作者列表："Jatuworapruk K","Grainger R","Dalbeth N","Taylor WJ
OBJECTIVES:Hospitalisation is a risk factor for flares in people with gout. However, the predictors of inpatient gout flare are not well understood. The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model for inpatient gout flare among people with comorbid gout. METHODS:We used data from a retrospective cohort of hospitalised patients with comorbid gout from Wellington, Aotearoa/New Zealand, in 2017 calendar year. For the development of a prediction model, we took three approaches: (A) a clinical knowledge-driven model, (B) a statistics-driven model and (C) a decision tree model. The final model was chosen based on practicality and performance, then validated using bootstrap procedure. RESULTS:The cohort consisted of 625 hospitalised patients with comorbid gout, 87 of whom experienced inpatient gout flare. Model A yielded 9 predictors of inpatient gout flare, while model B and C produced 15 and 5, respectively. Model A was chosen for its simplicity and superior C-statistics (0.82) and calibration slope (0.93). The final nine-item set of predictors were pre-admission urate >0.36 mmol/L, tophus, no pre-admission urate-lowering therapy (ULT), no pre-admission gout prophylaxis, acute kidney injury, surgery, initiation or increase of gout prophylaxis, adjustment of ULT and diuretics prior to flare. Bootstrap validation of the final model showed adequate C-statistics and calibration slope (0.80 and 0.78, respectively). CONCLUSION:We propose a set of nine predictors of inpatient flare for people with comorbid gout. The predictors are simple, practical and are supported by existing clinical knowledge.
目的: 住院是痛风患者耀斑的危险因素。然而，住院痛风发作的预测因素还不是很清楚。本研究的目的是在共病痛风患者中建立住院痛风发作的预测模型。 方法: 我们使用了 2017 日历年来自新西兰惠灵顿，Aotearoa/新西兰，共病痛风住院患者的回顾性队列数据。对于预测模型的开发，我们采取了三种方法 :( a) 临床知识驱动模型，(B) 统计驱动模型和 (C) 决策树模型。根据实用性和性能选择最终模型，然后使用bootstrap程序进行验证。 结果: 该队列包括 625 例共病痛风住院患者，其中 87 例经历了住院痛风发作。模型A产生了住院患者痛风发作的 9 个预测因子，而模型B和C分别产生了 15 个和 5 个。选择模型A是因为其简单性和优越的C统计量 (0.82) 和校准斜率 (0.93)。最终的九项预测因子是入院前尿酸盐> 0.36 mmol/L、痛风石、入院前无降尿酸治疗 (ULT) 、入院前无痛风预防、急性肾损伤，手术，开始或增加痛风预防，在发作前调整ULT和利尿剂。最终模型的Bootstrap验证显示足够的C统计量和校准斜率 (分别为 0.80 和 0.78)。 结论: 我们提出了一组共病痛风患者住院耀斑的 9 个预测因子。预测因子简单、实用，并得到现有临床知识的支持。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.