Hospital Privado

Publicado também em: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/53933

Catheter ablation of AF is a very commonly performed procedure in hospitals throughout the world. Surgical ablation of AF, although less widely available than catheter-based AF ablation, is also an important therapeutic option for patients with AF at many major medical centers. This document provides an up-to-date review of the indications, techniques, and outcomes of catheter and surgical ablation of AF. Areas for which a consensus can be reached concerning AF ablation are identified, and a series of consensus definitions have been developed for use in future clinical trials of AF ablation. Also included within this document are recommendations concerning indications for AF ablation, technical performance of this procedure, and training. It is our hope to improve patient care by providing a foundation for those involved with care of patients with AF as well as those who perform AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly and that this document will need to be updated. Successful AF ablation programs optimally should consist of a cooperative team of cardiologists, electrophysiologists, and surgeons to ensure appropriate indications, procedure selection, and follow-up.

Peritonitis is a common and serious complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although less than 5% of peritonitis episodes result in death, peritonitis is the direct or major contributing cause of death in around 16% of PD patients (1-6). In addition, severe or prolonged peritonitis leads to structural and functional alterations of the peritoneal membrane, eventually leading to membrane failure. Peritonitis is a major cause of PD technique failure and conversion to long-term hemodialysis (1,5,7,8). Recommendations under the auspices of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) were first published in 1983 and revised in 1993, 1996, 2000, 2005, and 2010 (9-14). The present recommendations are organized into 5 sections: 1. Peritonitis rate 2. Prevention of peritonitis 3. Initial presentation and management of peritonitis 4. Subsequent management of peritonitis 5

During the past three decades, catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard, minimally invasive, or hybrid techniques, is available in most major hospitals throughout the world. Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available, and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure. In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS).1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). This Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was rewritten in 2012 to reflect the many advances in AF ablation that had occurred in the interim.2 The rate of advancement in the tools, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation continue to increase as enormous research efforts are focused on the mechanisms, outcomes, and treatment of AF. For this reason, the HRS initiated an effort to rewrite and update this Consensus Statement. Reflecting both the worldwide importance of AF, as well as the worldwide performance of AF ablation, this document is the result of a joint partnership between the HRS, EHRA, ECAS, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Society of Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology (Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia [SOLAECE]). The purpose of this 2017 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a writing group, convened by these five international societies. The writing group is charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation procedures. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation and the reporting of outcomes, including definitions relevant to this topic. The writing group is composed of 60 experts representing 11 organizations: HRS, EHRA, ECAS, APHRS, SOLAECE, STS, ACC, American Heart Association (AHA), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS), and Brazilian Society of Cardiac Arrhythmias (Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardiacas [SOBRAC]). All the members of the writing group, as well as peer reviewers of the document, have provided disclosure statements for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. All author and peer reviewer disclosure information is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. In writing a consensus document, it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all the writing group members. Surveys of the entire writing group were used to identify areas of consensus concerning performance of AF ablation procedures and to develop recommendations concerning the indications for catheter and surgical AF ablation. These recommendations were systematically balloted by the 60 writing group members and were approved by a minimum of 80% of these members. The recommendations were also subject to a 1-month public comment period. Each partnering and collaborating organization then officially reviewed, commented on, edited, and endorsed the final document and recommendations. The grading system for indication of class of evidence level was adapted based on that used by the ACC and the AHA.3,4 It is important to state, however, that this document is not a guideline. The indications for catheter and surgical ablation of AF, as well as recommendations for procedure performance, are presented with a Class and Level of Evidence (LOE) to be consistent with what the reader is familiar with seeing in guideline statements. A Class I recommendation means that the benefits of the AF ablation procedure markedly exceed the risks, and that AF ablation should be performed; a Class IIa recommendation means that the benefits of an AF ablation procedure exceed the risks, and that it is reasonable to perform AF ablation; a Class IIb recommendation means that the benefit of AF ablation is greater or equal to the risks, and that AF ablation may be considered; and a Class III recommendation means that AF ablation is of no proven benefit and is not recommended. The writing group reviewed and ranked evidence supporting current recommendations with the weight of evidence ranked as Level A if the data were derived from high-quality evidence from more than one randomized clinical trial, meta-analyses of high-quality randomized clinical trials, or one or more randomized clinical trials corroborated by high-quality registry studies. The writing group ranked available evidence as Level B-R when there was moderate-quality evidence from one or more randomized clinical trials, or meta-analyses of moderate-quality randomized clinical trials. Level B-NR was used to denote moderate-quality evidence from one or more well-designed, well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational studies, or registry studies. This designation was also used to denote moderate-quality evidence from meta-analyses of such studies. Evidence was ranked as Level C-LD when the primary source of the recommendation was randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution, meta-analyses of such studies, or physiological or mechanistic studies of human subjects. Level C-EO was defined as expert opinion based on the clinical experience of the writing group. Despite a large number of authors, the participation of several societies and professional organizations, and the attempts of the group to reflect the current knowledge in the field adequately, this document is not intended as a guideline. Rather, the group would like to refer to the current guidelines on AF management for the purpose of guiding overall AF management strategies.5,6 This consensus document is specifically focused on catheter and surgical ablation of AF, and summarizes the opinion of the writing group members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are caring for patients who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF, and those involved in research in the field of AF ablation. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter or surgical ablation of AF. Rather, the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. The main objective of this document is to improve patient care by providing a foundation of knowledge for those involved with catheter ablation of AF. A second major objective is to provide recommendations for designing clinical trials and reporting outcomes of clinical trials of AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly. As this document was being prepared, further clinical trials of catheter and surgical ablation of AF were under way.

Symptomatic AF prior to initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy with a Class I or III antiarrhythmic medication Paroxysmal: Surgical ablation is reasonable. IIa

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the main cancer-related causes of death worldwide. Thus, there is a constant search for improvement in screening, diagnosis, and treatment strategies to improve the prognosis of this malignancy. The identification of useful biomarkers for surveillance and early HCC diagnosis is still deficient, with available serum biomarkers showing low sensitivity and heterogeneous specificity despite different cut-off points, even when assessed longitudinally, or with a combination of serum biomarkers. In contrast, HCC biomarkers used for prognostic (when associated with clinical outcomes) or predictive purposes (when associated with treatment response) may have an increased clinical role in the near future. Furthermore, some serum biomarkers are already implicated as a treatment selection tool, whether to provide access to certain therapies or to assess clinical benefit after treatment. In the present review we will discuss the clinical utility and foreseen future of HCC biomarkers implicated in surveillance, diagnosis, prognosis, and post-treatment assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of once-daily 8 or 12 mg perampanel, a noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid (AMPA) receptor antagonist, when added to concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the treatment of drug-resistant partial-onset seizures. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00699972). Patients (≥12 years, with ongoing seizures despite 1-3 AEDs) were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily perampanel 8 mg, 12 mg, or placebo. Following baseline (6 weeks), patients entered a 19-week double-blind phase: 6-week titration (2 mg/week increments to target dose) followed by a 13-week maintenance period. Percent change in seizure frequency was the primary endpoint; 50% responder rate was the primary endpoint for EU registration. RESULTS: Of 388 patients randomized and treated, 387 provided seizure frequency data. Using this intent-to-treat population over the double-blind phase, the median percent change in seizure frequency was -21.0%, -26.3%, and -34.5% for placebo and perampanel 8 and 12 mg, respectively (p = 0.0261 and p = 0.0158 for 8 and 12 mg vs placebo, respectively). Fifty percent responder rates during the maintenance period were 26.4%, 37.6%, and 36.1%, respectively, for placebo, perampanel 8 mg, and perampanel 12 mg; these differences were not statistically significant for 8 mg (p = 0.0760) or 12 mg (p = 0.0914). Sixty-eight (17.5%) patients discontinued, including 40 (10.3%) for adverse events. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, irritability, headache, fall, and ataxia. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrated that once-daily, adjunctive perampanel at doses of 8 or 12 mg improved seizure control in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures. Doses of perampanel 8 and 12 mg were safe, and tolerability was acceptable. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that once-daily 8 and 12 mg doses of adjunctive perampanel are effective in patients with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures.

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is familial aggregation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or other autoimmune diseases in SLE patients and to identify clinical differences between patients with and those without familial autoimmunity. METHODS: We interviewed members of the Grupo Latinoamericano de Estudio del Lupus Eritematoso (GLADEL) inception cohort of 1,214 SLE patients to ascertain whether they had relatives with SLE and/or other autoimmune diseases. Identified relatives were studied. Familial aggregation was tested using reported highest and intermediate population prevalence data for SLE, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or all autoimmune diseases, and studies were performed to identify the genetic model applicable for SLE. RESULTS: We identified 116 first-, second-, or third-degree relatives with SLE, 79 with RA, 23 with autoimmune thyroiditis, 3 with scleroderma, 1 with polymyositis, and 16 with other autoimmune diseases, related to 166 of the 1,177 SLE patients in the GLADEL cohort who agreed to participate. Forty-two SLE patients had 2 or more relatives with an autoimmune disease. We found a lambda(sibling) of 5.8 and 29.0 for SLE and of 3.2-5.3 for RA, when comparing with their reported high or intermediate population prevalence, respectively. We also found familial aggregation for autoimmune disease in general (lambda(sibling) = 1.5) and determined that for SLE, a polygenic additive genetic model, rather than a multiplicative one, is applicable. CONCLUSION: In SLE there is familial aggregation of SLE, RA, and autoimmune disease in general. A polygenic additive model applies for SLE. American Indian-white Mestizo SLE patients and those with higher socioeconomic level were more likely to have familial autoimmunity.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this phase III study to evaluate baricitinib, an orally administered JAK-1/JAK-2 inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) compared to MTX monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had received no or minimal conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and who were naive to biologic DMARDs. METHODS: A total of 588 patients were randomized 4:3:4 to receive MTX monotherapy (once weekly), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily), or the combination of baricitinib and MTX for 52 weeks. The primary end point assessment was a noninferiority comparison of baricitinib monotherapy to MTX monotherapy based on the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 24. RESULTS: The study met its primary objective. Moreover, baricitinib monotherapy was found to be superior to MTX monotherapy at week 24, with a higher ACR20 response rate (77% versus 62%; P ≤ 0.01). Similar results were observed for combination therapy. Compared to MTX monotherapy, significant improvements in disease activity and physical function were observed for both baricitinib groups as early as week 1. Radiographic progression was reduced in both baricitinib groups compared to MTX monotherapy; the difference was statistically significant for baricitinib plus MTX. The rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups, while rates of some treatment-emergent AEs, including infections, were increased with baricitinib plus MTX. Three deaths were reported, all occurring in the MTX monotherapy group. Malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were reported in 1 patient receiving MTX monotherapy, 1 receiving baricitinib monotherapy, and 4 receiving baricitinib plus MTX. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX demonstrated superior efficacy with acceptable safety compared to MTX monotherapy as initial therapy for patients with active RA.

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Lay summary The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis last published a guideline on prescribing peritoneal dialysis (PD) in 2006. This focused on clearance of toxins and used a measure of waste product removal by dialysis using urea as an example. This guideline suggested that a specific quantity of small solute removal was needed to achieve dialysis `adequacy'. It is now generally accepted, however, that the well-being of the person on dialysis is related to many different factors and not just removal of specific toxins. This guideline has been written with the focus on the person doing PD. It is proposed that dialysis delivery should be `goal-directed'. This involves discussions between the person doing PD and the care team (shared decision-making) to establish care goals for dialysis delivery. The aims of these care goals are (1) to allow the person doing PD to achieve his/her own life goals and (2) to promote the provision of high-quality dialysis care by the dialysis team.Key recommendations 1. PD should be prescribed using shared decision-making between the person doing PD and the care team. The aim is to establish realistic care goals that (1) maintain quality of life for the person doing PD as much as possible by enabling them to meet their life goals, (2) minimize symptoms and treatment burden while (3) ensuring high-quality care is provided. 2. The PD prescription should take into account the local country resources, the wishes and lifestyle considerations of people needing treatment, including those of their families/caregivers', especially if providing assistance in their care. 3. A number of assessments should be used to help ensure the delivery of high-quality PD care. a. Patient reported outcome measures - this is a measure of how a person doing PD is experiencing life and his/her feeling of well-being. It should take into account the person's symptoms, impact of the dialysis regimen on the person's life, mental health and social circumstances. b. Fluid status is an important part of dialysis delivery. Urine output and fluid removed by dialysis both contribute to maintaining good fluid status. Regular assessment of fluid status, including blood pressure and clinical examination, should be part of routine care. c. Nutrition status should be assessed regularly through evaluation of the patient's appetite, clinical examination, body weight measurements and blood tests (potassium, bicarbonate, phosphate, albumin). Dietary intake of potassium, phosphate, sodium, protein, carbohydrate and fat may need to be assessed and adjusted as well. d. Removal of toxins. This can be estimated using a calculation called Kt/Vurea and/or creatinine clearance. Both are measures of the amount of dialysis delivered. There is no high-quality evidence regarding the need or benefit associated with the achievement of a specific target value for these measures. 4. The amount of kidney function that continues to remove waste products and the remaining urine volume should be known for all individuals doing PD. Management should focus on preserving this as long as possible. 5. For some people who require dialysis and who are old, frail or have a poor prognosis, there may be a quality of life benefit from a reduced dialysis prescription to minimize the burden of treatment. 6. In low and lower middle-income countries, every effort should be made to conform to the framework of these statements, taking into account resource limitations. 7. The principles of prescribing and assessing delivery of high-quality PD to children are the same as for adults. In all cases, the PD prescription should be designed to meet the medical, mental health social and financial needs of the individual child and family

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The evolving epidemiologic patterns of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) throughout the world, in conjunction with advances in therapeutic treatments, may influence hospitalization rates of IBD. We performed a systematic review with temporal analysis of hospitalization rates for IBD across the world in the 21st century. METHODS: We systematically reviewed Medline and Embase for population-based studies reporting hospitalization rates for IBD, Crohn's disease (CD), or ulcerative colitis (UC) in the 21st century. Log-linear models were used to calculate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Random-effects meta-analysis pooled country-level AAPCs. Data were stratified by the epidemiologic stage of a region: compounding prevalence (stage 3) in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania vs acceleration of incidence (stage 2) in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America vs emergence (stage 1) in developing countries. RESULTS: Hospitalization rates for a primary diagnosis of IBD were stable in countries in stage 3 (AAPC, -0.13%; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.97), CD (AAPC, 0.20%; 95% CI, -1.78 to 2.17), and UC (AAPC, 0.02%; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.94). In contrast, hospitalization rates for a primary diagnosis were increasing in countries in stage 2 for IBD (AAPC, 4.44%; 95% CI, 2.75 to 6.14), CD (AAPC, 8.34%; 95% CI, 4.38 to 12.29), and UC (AAPC, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.29 to 6.52). No population-based studies were available for developing regions in stage 1 (emergence). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization rates for IBD are stabilizing in countries in stage 3, whereas newly industrialized countries in stage 2 have rapidly increasing hospitalization rates, contributing to an increasing burden on global health care systems.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) affect almost all patients with dementia and are a major focus of study and treatment. Accurate assessment of NPS through valid, sensitive and reliable measures is crucial. Although current NPS measures have many strengths, they also have some limitations (e.g. acquisition of data is limited to informants or caregivers as respondents, limited depth of items specific to moderate dementia). Therefore, we developed a revised version of the NPI, known as the NPI-C. The NPI-C includes expanded domains and items, and a clinician-rating methodology. This study evaluated the reliability and convergent validity of the NPI-C at ten international sites (seven languages). METHODS: Face validity for 78 new items was obtained through a Delphi panel. A total of 128 dyads (caregivers/patients) from three severity categories of dementia (mild = 58, moderate = 49, severe = 21) were interviewed separately by two trained raters using two rating methods: the original NPI interview and a clinician-rated method. Rater 1 also administered four additional, established measures: the Apathy Evaluation Scale, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Index, and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. Intraclass correlations were used to determine inter-rater reliability. Pearson correlations between the four relevant NPI-C domains and their corresponding outside measures were used for convergent validity. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was strong for most items. Convergent validity was moderate (apathy and agitation) to strong (hallucinations and delusions; agitation and aberrant vocalization; and depression) for clinician ratings in NPI-C domains. CONCLUSION: Overall, the NPI-C shows promise as a versatile tool which can accurately measure NPS and which uses a uniform scale system to facilitate data comparisons across studies.

Recipients of extended-criteria donor (ECD) kidneys have poorer long-term outcomes compared to standard-criteria donor kidney recipients. We report 3-year outcomes from a randomized, phase III study in recipients of de novo ECD kidneys (n = 543) assigned (1:1:1) to either a more intensive (MI) or less intensive (LI) belatacept regimen, or cyclosporine. Three hundred twenty-three patients completed treatment by year 3. Patient survival with a functioning graft was comparable between groups (80% in MI, 82% in LI, 80% in cyclosporine). Mean calculated GFR (cGFR) was 11 mL/min higher in belatacept-treated versus cyclosporine-treated patients (42.7 in MI, 42.2 in LI, 31.5 mL/min in cyclosporine). More cyclosporine-treated patients (44%) progressed to GFR <30 mL/min (chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage 4/5) than belatacept-treated patients (27–30%). Acute rejection rates were similar between groups. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) occurrence was higher in belatacept-treated patients (two in MI, three in LI), most of which occurred during the first 18 months; four additional cases (3 in LI, 1 in cyclosporine) occurred after 3 years. Tuberculosis was reported in two MI, four LI and no cyclosporine patients. In conclusion, at 3 years after transplantation, immunosuppression with belatacept resulted in similar patient survival, graft survival and acute rejection, with better renal function compared with cyclosporine. As previously reported, PTLD and tuberculosis were the principal safety findings associated with belatacept in this study population. Recipients of extended-criteria donor (ECD) kidneys have poorer long-term outcomes compared to standard-criteria donor kidney recipients. We report 3-year outcomes from a randomized, phase III study in recipients of de novo ECD kidneys (n = 543) assigned (1:1:1) to either a more intensive (MI) or less intensive (LI) belatacept regimen, or cyclosporine. Three hundred twenty-three patients completed treatment by year 3. Patient survival with a functioning graft was comparable between groups (80% in MI, 82% in LI, 80% in cyclosporine). Mean calculated GFR (cGFR) was 11 mL/min higher in belatacept-treated versus cyclosporine-treated patients (42.7 in MI, 42.2 in LI, 31.5 mL/min in cyclosporine). More cyclosporine-treated patients (44%) progressed to GFR <30 mL/min (chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage 4/5) than belatacept-treated patients (27–30%). Acute rejection rates were similar between groups. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) occurrence was higher in belatacept-treated patients (two in MI, three in LI), most of which occurred during the first 18 months; four additional cases (3 in LI, 1 in cyclosporine) occurred after 3 years. Tuberculosis was reported in two MI, four LI and no cyclosporine patients. In conclusion, at 3 years after transplantation, immunosuppression with belatacept resulted in similar patient survival, graft survival and acute rejection, with better renal function compared with cyclosporine. As previously reported, PTLD and tuberculosis were the principal safety findings associated with belatacept in this study population.

The International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS) developed consensus guidelines to inform anal cancer screening use among various high-risk groups. Anal cancer incidence estimates by age among risk groups provided the basis to identify risk thresholds to recommend screening. Guided by risk thresholds, screening initiation at age 35 years was recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TW) with HIV. For other people with HIV and MSM and TW not with HIV, screening initiation at age 45 years was recommended. For solid organ transplant recipients, screening initiation beginning from 10 years post-transplant was recommended. For persons with a history of vulvar precancer or cancer, screening initiation was recommended starting within 1 year of diagnosis of vulvar precancer or cancer. Persons aged ≥45 years with a history of cervical/vaginal HSIL or cancer, perianal warts, persistent (>1 year) cervical HPV16, or autoimmune conditions could be considered for screening with shared decision-making, provided there is adequate capacity to perform diagnostic procedures (high-resolution anoscopy [HRA]). Anal cytology, high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (including genotyping for HPV16), and hrHPV-cytology co-testing are different strategies currently used for anal cancer screening that show acceptable performance. Thresholds for referral for HRA or follow-up screening tests are delineated. These recommendations from IANS provide the basis to inform management of abnormal screening results, considering currently available screening tools. These guidelines provide a pivotal foundation to help generate consensus among providers and inform the introduction and implementation of risk-targeted screening for anal cancer prevention.

International audience

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple intravenous (IV) doses of sifalimumab in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential dose-escalation study, patients were randomized 3:1 to receive IV sifalimumab (0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks to week 26, then followed up for 24 weeks. Safety assessment included recording of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated, and disease activity was assessed. RESULTS: Of 161 patients, 121 received sifalimumab (26 received 0.3 mg/kg; 25, 1.0 mg/kg; 27, 3.0 mg/kg; and 43, 10 mg/kg) and 40 received placebo. Patients were predominantly female (95.7%). At baseline, patients had moderate-to-severe disease activity (mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 11.0), and most (75.2%) had a high type I interferon (IFN) gene signature. In the sifalimumab group versus the placebo group, the incidence of ≥1 treatment-emergent AE was 92.6% versus 95.0%, ≥1 serious AE was 22.3% versus 27.5%, and ≥1 infection was 67.8% versus 62.5%; discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 9.1% versus 7.5%, and death occurred in 3.3% (n=4) versus 2.5% (n=1). Serum sifalimumab concentrations increased in a linear and dose-proportional manner. Inhibition of the type I IFN gene signature was sustained during treatment in patients with a high baseline signature. No statistically significant differences in clinical activity (SLEDAI and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group score) between sifalimumab and placebo were observed. However, when adjusted for excess burst steroids, SLEDAI change from baseline showed a positive trend over time. A trend toward normal complement C3 or C4 level at week 26 was seen in the sifalimumab groups compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: The observed safety/tolerability and clinical activity profile of sifalimumab support its continued clinical development for SLE.

BACKGROUND: Insulin is a thyroid growth factor that stimulates proliferation of thyroid cells in culture. In order to evaluate the effects of insulin resistance (IR) on the thyroid gland, we developed a prospective study in euthyroid women. METHODS: One hundred eleven women (mean age 32.2 +/- 7 years) were evaluated by a thyroid ultrasound (US) and basal and postprandial serum insulin. Subjects were divided into four groups as follows: G1 (n = 42), subjects with IR and obesity; G2 (n = 21), subjects with obesity without IR; G3 (n = 17), subjects with IR and normal weight; and G4 (n = 31) control group (without IR and obesity). RESULTS: The thyroid volume (TV), measured by US, showed the following values: G1, 17 +/- 3 mL; G2, 13.8 +/- 2.8 mL; G3, 16.2 +/- 2.1 mL; and G4,12.1 +/- 2.4 mL. There was no significant difference in TV between G1 and G3, but differences between G1 and G2, and between G3 and G4 were significant at p < 0.05. The percentage of nodular thyroid glands observed by US in each group was as follows: G1, 50%; G2, 23.8%; G3, 61%; G4, 16.1%. Again, the differences between G1 and G2 and between G3 and G4 were statistically significant (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively, for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the higher circulating levels of insulin cause increased thyroid proliferation. The clinical manifestations are the larger thyroid volume and the formation of nodules. Thus, the thyroid gland appears to be another victim of the insulin resistance syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the beneficial effect of antimalarial treatment on lupus survival in a large, multiethnic, international longitudinal inception cohort. METHODS: Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, clinical manifestations, classification criteria, laboratory findings, and treatment variables were examined in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus Eritematoso (GLADEL) cohort. The diagnosis of SLE, according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, was assessed within 2 years of cohort entry. Cause of death was classified as active disease, infection, cardiovascular complications, thrombosis, malignancy, or other cause. Patients were subdivided by antimalarial use, grouped according to those who had received antimalarial drugs for at least 6 consecutive months (user) and those who had received antimalarial drugs for <6 consecutive months or who had never received antimalarial drugs (nonuser). RESULTS: Of the 1,480 patients included in the GLADEL cohort, 1,141 (77%) were considered antimalarial users, with a mean duration of drug exposure of 48.5 months (range 6-98 months). Death occurred in 89 patients (6.0%). A lower mortality rate was observed in antimalarial users compared with nonusers (4.4% versus 11.5%; P< 0.001). Seventy patients (6.1%) had received antimalarial drugs for 6-11 months, 146 (12.8%) for 1-2 years, and 925 (81.1%) for >2 years. Mortality rates among users by duration of antimalarial treatment (per 1,000 person-months of followup) were 3.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.41-8.37), 2.7 (95% CI 1.41-4.76), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37-0.77), respectively, while for nonusers, the mortality rate was 3.07 (95% CI 2.18-4.20) (P for trend < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders in a Cox regression model, antimalarial use was associated with a 38% reduction in the mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99). CONCLUSION: Antimalarial drugs were shown to have a protective effect, possibly in a time-dependent manner, on SLE survival. These results suggest that the use of antimalarial treatment should be recommended for patients with lupus.