Assessment of Lighting Strategies and Their Influence on Users' Experience in Art Galleries

Adequate daylighting represents both an element of pleasure and at the same time, an element of pain. Often, these two essentials tend to conflict with one another since revealing artwork to a source of concentrated light can sometimes affect its eminence. There is, therefore, a significant need to assess lighting strategies used in art galleries and their influence on users of art galleries. This project aims to assess lighting strategies and their influence on the users of selected art galleries. This research made use of quantitative research approach. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire, and the IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was used to analyze the quantitative data. Results show that natural lighting is essential in achieving a positive user experience, and the positioning of openings should be considered when designing an exhibition space to avoid glare. Conclusively natural lighting should be considered in designing exhibition spaces. In other to achieve this natural lighting without hurting the users, positioning of the opening ought to be considered carefully. In conclusion, lighting strategies used an exhibitio

African League Against Rheumatism (AFLAR) preliminary recommendations on the management of rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives: To develop recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: A task force comprising of 25 rheumatologists from the 5 regions of the continent was formed and operated through a hub-and-spoke model with a central working committee (CWC) and 4 subgroups. The subgroups championed separate scopes of the clinical questions and formulated preliminary statements of recommendations which were processed centrally in the CWC. The CWC and each subgroup met by several virtual meetings, and two rounds of voting were conducted on the drafted statements of recommendations. Votes were online-delivered and recommendations were pruned down according to predefined criteria. Each statement was rated between 1 and 9 with 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9 representing disagreement, uncertainty and agreement, respectively. The levels of agreement on the statements were stratified as low, moderate or high according to the spread of votes. A statement was retired if it had a mean vote below 7 or a \u27low\u27 level of agreement. Results: A total of 126 initial statements of recommendations were drafted, and these were reduced to 22 after the two rounds of voting. Conclusions: The preliminary statements of recommendations will serve to guide the clinical practice of rheumatology across Africa amidst the changing practices and uncertainties in the current era of COVID-19. It is recognized that further updates to the recommendations will be needed as more evidence emerges. Key Points • AFLAR has developed preliminary recommendations for the management of RMDs in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. • COVID-19 is an unprecedented experience which has brought new concerns regarding the use of some disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and these recommendations seek to provide guidelines to the African rheumatologists. • Hydroxychloroquine shortage has become rampart across Africa as the drug is being used as prophylaxis against COVID-19 and this may necessitate a review of treatment plan for some patients with RMDs. • Breastfeeding should continue for as long as possible if a woman is positive for SARS-CoV-2 as there is currently no evidence that the infection can be transmitted through breast milk

"I suddenly felt I'd aged": A qualitative study of patient experiences of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR).

To explore patient experiences of living with, and receiving treatment for, PMR

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor

Objectives: Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, regulates inflammatory mediators. Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy 1 (PALACE 1) compared apremilast with placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite prior traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and/or biologic therapy. Methods: In the 24-week, placebo-controlled phase of PALACE 1, patients (N=504) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day (BID) or apremilast 30 mg BID. At week 16, patients without ≥20% reduction in swollen and tender joint counts were required to be re-randomised equally to either apremilast dose if initially randomised to placebo or remained on their initial apremilast dose. Patients on background concurrent DMARDs continued stable doses (methotrexate, leflunomide and/or sulfasalazine). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 16. Results: At week 16, significantly more apremilast 20 mg BID (31%) and 30 mg BID (40%) patients achieved ACR20 versus placebo (19%) (p<0.001). Significant improvements in key secondary measures (physical function, psoriasis) were evident with both apremilast doses versus placebo. Across outcome measures, the 30-mg group generally had higher and more consistent response rates, although statistical comparison was not conducted. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and generally occurred early, were self-limiting and infrequently led to discontinuation. No imbalance in major adverse cardiac events, serious or opportunistic infections, malignancies or laboratory abnormalities was observed. Conclusions: Apremilast was effective in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, improving signs and symptoms and physical function. Apremilast demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated. Clinical trial registration number NCT01172938

Oral Abstracts 7: RA ClinicalO37. Long-Term Outcomes of Early RA Patients Initiated with Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate Compared with Methotrexate Alone Following a Targeted Treatment Approach

Background: This analysis assessed, on a group level, whether there is a long-term advantage for early RA patients treated with adalimumab (ADA) + MTX vs those initially treated with placebo (PBO) + MTX who either responded to therapy or added ADA following inadequate response (IR). Methods: OPTIMA was a 78- week, randomized, controlled trial of ADA + MTX vs PBO + MTX in MTX-naïve early (<1 year) RA patients. Therapy was adjusted at week 26: ADA + MTX-responders (R) who achieved DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 at weeks 22 and 26 (Period 1, P1) were re-randomized to withdraw or continue ADA and PBO + MTX-R continued randomized therapy for 52 weeks (P2); IR-patients received open-label (OL) ADA + MTX during P2. This post hoc analysis evaluated the proportion of patients at week 78 with DAS28 (CRP) <3.2, HAQ-DI <0.5, and/or ΔmTSS ≤0.5 by initial treatment. To account for patients who withdrew ADA during P2, an equivalent proportion of R was imputed from ADA + MTX-R patients. Results: At week 26, significantly more patients had low disease activity, normal function, and/or no radiographic progression with ADA + MTX vs PBO + MTX (Table 1). Differences in clinical and functional outcomes disappeared following additional treatment, when PBO + MTX-IR (n = 348/460) switched to OL ADA + MTX. Addition of OL ADA slowed radiographic progression, but more patients who received ADA + MTX from baseline had no radiographic progression at week 78 than patients who received initial PBO + MTX. Conclusions: Early RA patients treated with PBO + MTX achieved comparable long-term clinical and functional outcomes on a group level as those who began ADA + MTX, but only when therapy was optimized by the addition of ADA in PBO + MTX-IR. Still, ADA + MTX therapy conferred a radiographic benefit although the difference did not appear to translate to an additional functional benefit. Disclosures: P.E., AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, BMS—Provided Expert Advice, Undertaken Trials, AbbVie—AbbVie sponsored the study, contributed to its design, and participated in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the writing, reviewing, and approval of the final version. R.F., AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, UCB, Celgene, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. S.F., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. A.K., AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. H.K., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. S.R., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. J.S., AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer (Wyeth), MSD (Schering-Plough), Novo-Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, UCB—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. R.V., AbbVie, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma—Consultation Fees, Research Support. Table 1.Week 78 clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes in patients who received continued ADA + MTX vs those who continued PBO + MTX or added open-label ADA following an inadequate response ADA + MTX, n/N (%)a PBO + MTX, n/N (%)b Outcome Week 26 Week 52 Week 78 Week 26 Week 52 Week 78 DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 246/466 (53) 304/465 (65) 303/465 (65) 139/460 (30)*** 284/460 (62) 300/460 (65) HAQ-DI <0.5 211/466 (45) 220/466 (47) 224/466 (48) 150/460 (33)*** 203/460 (44) 208/460 (45) ΔmTSS ≤0.5 402/462 (87) 379/445 (86) 382/443 (86) 330/459 (72)*** 318/440 (72)*** 318/440 (72)*** DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 + ΔmTSS ≤0.5 216/462 (47) 260/443 (59) 266/443 (60) 112/459 (24)*** 196/440 (45) 211/440 (48)*** DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 + HAQ-DI <0.5 + ΔmTSS ≤0.5 146/462 (32) 168/443 (38) 174/443 (39) 82/459 (18)*** 120/440 (27)*** 135/440 (31)** aIncludes patients from the ADA Continuation (n = 105) and OL ADA Carry On (n = 259) arms, as well as the proportional equivalent number of responders from the ADA Withdrawal arm (n = 102). bIncludes patients from the MTX Continuation (n = 112) and Rescue ADA (n = 348) arms. Last observation carried forward: DAS28 (CRP) and HAQ-DI; Multiple imputations: ΔmTSS. ***P < 0.001 and **iP < 0.01, respectively, for differences between initial treatments from chi-squar

Latitude gradient influences the age of onset of rheumatoid arthritis : a worldwide survey

The age of onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an important outcome predictor. Northern countries report an age of RA onset of around 50 years, but apparently, variability exists across different geographical regions. The objective of the present study is to assess whether the age of onset of RA varies across latitudes worldwide. In a proof-of-concept cross-sectional worldwide survey, rheumatologists from preselected cities interviewed 20 consecutive RA patients regarding the date of RA onset (RAO, when the patient first noted a swollen joint). Other studied variables included location of each city, rheumatologist settings, latitudes (10A degrees increments, south to north), longitudes (three regions), intracountry consistency, and countries' Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI). Data from 2481 patients (82% females) were obtained from 126 rheumatologists in 77 cities of 41 countries. Worldwide mean age of RAO was 44 +/- 14 years (95% CI 44-45). In 28% of patients, RA began before age 36 years and before age 46 years in 50% of patients. RAO was 8 years earlier around the Tropic of Cancer when compared with northern latitudes (p <0.001, 95% CI 3.5-13). Multivariate analysis showed that females, western cities, and latitudes around the Tropic of Cancer are associated with younger age of RAO (R (2) 0.045, p <0.001). A positive correlation was found between the age of RAO and IHDI (r = 0.7, p <0.01, R (2) 0.5). RA often begins at an early age and onset varies across latitudes worldwide. We postulate that countries' developmental status and their geographical and geomagnetic location influence the age of RAO.Peer reviewe

Unique role of rheumatology in establishing collaborative relationships in research. Past, present and future of patient engagement

The specialty of rheumatology takes care of people with disabling and long-term musculoskeletal conditions. For these patients, good healthcare requires the establishment of a sustainable partnership with healthcare professionals. For over two decades, rheumatology has been a frontrunner in piloting and implementing new kinds of partnerships in scientific research. In this viewpoint paper, we provide evidence for the leading role of rheumatology in developing strategies for engaging patients in research agenda setting, outcome research, developing treatment recommendations, assessing grant applications, conducting patient-centred research and transferring knowledge from research into practice. Experiences and lessons learnt in rheumatology are regularly published and are currently widely adapted and implemented in other specialties and research contexts. Challenges still exist and it is expected that rheumatology, as a leading discipline in this field, may further enhance our knowledge, expertise and understanding of the conditions for relational empowerment and meaningful patient involvement