Results of the worldwide, cross-sectional ASAS-PerSpA study

Objectives: To characterise peripheral musculoskeletal involvement in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), across the world. Methods: Cross-sectional study with 24 participating countries. Patients with a diagnosis of axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral SpA (pSpA) or PsA according to their rheumatologist were included. The investigators were asked which diagnosis out of a list of six (axSpA, PsA, pSpA, inflammatory bowel disease-associated SpA, reactive arthritis or juvenile SpA (Juv-SpA)) fitted the patient best. Peripheral manifestations (ie, peripheral joint disease, enthesitis, dactylitis and root joint disease), their localisation and treatments were evaluated. Results: A total of 4465 patients were included (61% men, mean age 44.5 years) from four geographic areas: Latin America (n=538), Europe plus North America (n=1677), Asia (n=975) and the Middle East plus North Africa (n=1275). Of those, 78% had ever suffered from at least one peripheral musculoskeletal manifestation; 57% had peripheral joint disease, 44% had enthesitis and 15% had dactylitis. Latin American had far more often peripheral joint disease (80%) than patients from other areas. Patients with PsA had predominantly upper limb and small joint involvement (52%). Hip and shoulder involvement was found in 34% of patients. The prevalence of enthesitis ranged between 41% in patients with axSpA and 65% in patients with Juv-SpA. Dactylitis was most frequent among patients with PsA (37%). Conclusion: These results suggest that all peripheral features can be found in all subtypes of SpA, and that differences are quantitative rather than qualitative. In a high proportion of patients, axial and peripheral manifestations coincided. These findings reconfirm SpA clinical subtypes are descendants of the same underlying disease, called SpA.publishersversionpublishe

A cluster analysis in the worldwide ASAS-PerSpA study

Objective To identify clusters of peripheral involvement according to the specific location of peripheral manifestations (ie, arthritis, enthesitis and dactylitis) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and to evaluate whether these clusters correspond with the clinical diagnosis of a rheumatologist. Methods Cross-sectional study with 24 participating countries. Consecutive patients diagnosed by their rheumatologist as PsA, axial SpA or peripheral SpA were enrolled. Four different cluster analyses were conducted: one using information on the specific location from all the peripheral manifestations, and a cluster analysis for each peripheral manifestation, separately. Multiple correspondence analyses and k-means clustering methods were used. Distribution of peripheral manifestations and clinical characteristics were compared across the different clusters. Results The different cluster analyses performed in the 4465 patients clearly distinguished a predominantly axial phenotype (cluster 1) and a predominantly peripheral phenotype (cluster 2). In the predominantly axial phenotype, hip involvement and lower limb large joint arthritis, heel enthesitis and lack of dactylitis were more prevalent. In the predominantly peripheral phenotype, different subgroups were distinguished based on the type and location of peripheral involvement: a predominantly involvement of upper versus lower limbs joints, a predominantly axial enthesitis versus peripheral enthesitis, and predominantly finger versus toe involvement in dactylitis. A poor agreement between the clusters and the rheumatologist € s diagnosis as well as with the classification criteria was found. Conclusion These results suggest the presence of two main phenotypes (predominantly axial and predominantly peripheral) based on the presence and location of the peripheral manifestations.publishersversionpublishe

Type-Specific HPV Prevalence in Cervical Cancer and High-Grade Lesions in Latin America and the Caribbean: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a major public health problem in Latin America and the Caribbean (LA&C), showing some of the highest incidence and mortality rates worldwide. Information on HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions (HSIL) and invasive cervical cancer (ICC) is crucial to predict the future impact of HPV16/18 vaccines and screening programmes, and to establish an appropriate post-vaccinal virologic surveillance. The aim was to assess the prevalence of HPV types in HSIL and ICC in studies in LA&C. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic review, following the MOOSE guidelines for systematic reviews of observational studies, and the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria were at least ten cases of HSIL/ICC, and HPV-type elicitation. The search, without language restrictions, was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS from inception date to December 2009, proceedings, reference lists and consulting experts. A meta-analysis was performed using arc-sine transformations to stabilize the variance of simple proportions. Seventy-nine studies from 18 countries were identified, including 2446 cases of HSIL and 5540 of ICC. Overall, 46.5% of HSIL cases harbored HPV 16 and 8.9% HPV18; in ICC, 53.2% of cases harbored HPV 16 and 13.2% HPV 18. The next five most common types, in decreasing frequency, were HPV 31, 58, 33, 45, and 52. Study's limitations comprise the cross-sectional design of most included studies and their inherent risk of bias, the lack of representativeness, and variations in the HPV type-specific sensitivity of different PCR protocols. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the broadest summary of HPV type distribution in HSIL and ICC in LA&C to date. These data are essential for local decision makers regarding HPV screening and vaccination policies. Continued HPV surveillance would be useful, to assess the potential for changing type-specific HPV prevalence in the post-vaccination era in Latin America

Recent updates and perspectives on approaches for the development of vaccines against visceral leishmaniasis

All rights reserved. Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is one of the most important tropical diseases worldwide. Although chemotherapy has been widely used to treat this disease, problems related to the development of parasite resistance and side effects associated with the compounds used have been noted. Hence, alternative approaches for VL control are desirable. Some methods, such as vector control and culling of infected dogs, are insufficiently effective, with the latter not ethically recommended. The development of vaccines to prevent VL is a feasible and desirable measure for disease control, for example, some vaccines designed to protect dogs against VL have recently been brought to market. These vaccines are based on the combination of parasite fractions or recombinant proteins with adjuvants that are able to induce cellular immune responses, however, their partial efficacy and the absence of a vaccine to protect against human leishmaniasis underline the need for characterization of new vaccine candidates. This review presents recent advances in control measures for VL based on vaccine development, describing extensively studied antigens, as well as new antigenic proteins recently identified using immuno-proteomic techniquesThis work was supported by grants from Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Nano-Biofarmacêutica, Rede Nanobiotec/Brasil-Universidade Federal de Uberlândia/CAPES, PRONEX-FAPEMIG (APQ-01019-09), FAPEMIG (CBB-APQ-00819-12 and CBB-APQ-01778-2014), and CNPq (APQ-482976/2012-8, APQ-488237/2013-0, and APQ-467640/2014-9). EAFC and LRG are recipients of the grant from CNPq. MACF is the recipient of grants from FAPEMIG/CAPE

Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: “AbSeS”, a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project

Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). Methods: We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Results: The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. Conclusion: This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Modelling human choices: MADeM and decision‑making

Research supported by FAPESP 2015/50122-0 and DFG-GRTK 1740/2. RP and AR are also part of the Research, Innovation and Dissemination Center for Neuromathematics FAPESP grant (2013/07699-0). RP is supported by a FAPESP scholarship (2013/25667-8). ACR is partially supported by a CNPq fellowship (grant 306251/2014-0)