SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Vital A) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Vital A)

  • Resultat 1-10 av 14
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  •  
2.
  • Fanouriakis, Antonis, et al. (författare)
  • EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus : 2023 update
  • 2024
  • Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : HighWire Press. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 83:1, s. 15-29
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • OBJECTIVES: To update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) based on emerging new evidence.METHODS: An international Task Force formed the questions for the systematic literature reviews (January 2018-December 2022), followed by formulation and finalisation of the statements after a series of meetings. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned, and participants finally provided their level of agreement with each item.RESULTS: The Task Force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations, concerning the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), glucocorticoids (GC), immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide (CYC)), calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, voclosporin) and biologics (belimumab, anifrolumab, rituximab). Advice is also provided on treatment strategies and targets of therapy, assessment of response, combination and sequential therapies, and tapering of therapy. HCQ is recommended for all patients with lupus at a target dose 5 mg/kg real body weight/day, considering the individual's risk for flares and retinal toxicity. GC are used as 'bridging therapy' during periods of disease activity; for maintenance treatment, they should be minimised to equal or less than 5 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) and, when possible, withdrawn. Prompt initiation of ISDs (methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate) and/or biological agents (anifrolumab, belimumab) should be considered to control the disease and facilitate GC tapering/discontinuation. CYC and rituximab should be considered in organ-threatening and refractory disease, respectively. For active lupus nephritis, GC, mycophenolate or low-dose intravenous CYC are recommended as anchor drugs, and add-on therapy with belimumab or CNIs (voclosporin or tacrolimus) should be considered. Updated specific recommendations are also provided for cutaneous, neuropsychiatric and haematological disease, SLE-associated antiphospholipid syndrome, kidney protection, as well as preventative measures for infections, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease.CONCLUSION: The updated recommendations provide consensus guidance on the management of SLE, combining evidence and expert opinion.
  •  
3.
  •  
4.
  • Rodriguez-Carrio, Javier, et al. (författare)
  • 2022 EULAR points to consider for the measurement, reporting and application of IFN-I pathway activation assays in clinical research and practice
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 82:6, s. 754-762
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Type I interferons (IFN-Is) play a role in a broad range of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), and compelling evidence suggests that their measurement could have clinical value, although testing has not progressed into clinical settings.Objective: To develop evidence-based points to consider (PtC) for the measurement and reporting of IFN-I assays in clinical research and to determine their potential clinical utility.Methods: EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A task force including rheumatologists, immunologists, translational scientists and a patient partner was formed. Two systematic reviews were conducted to address methodological and clinical questions. PtC were formulated based on the retrieved evidence and expert opinion. Level of evidence and agreement was determined.Results: Two overarching principles and 11 PtC were defined. The first set (PtC 1-4) concerned terminology, assay characteristics and reporting practices to enable more consistent reporting and facilitate translation and collaborations. The second set (PtC 5-11) addressed clinical applications for diagnosis and outcome assessments, including disease activity, prognosis and prediction of treatment response. The mean level of agreement was generally high, mainly in the first PtC set and for clinical applications in systemic lupus erythematosus. Harmonisation of assay methodology and clinical validation were key points for the research agenda.Conclusions: IFN-I assays have a high potential for implementation in the clinical management of RMDs. Uptake of these PtC will facilitate the progress of IFN-I assays into clinical practice and may be also of interest beyond rheumatology.
  •  
5.
  • Burska, A, et al. (författare)
  • TYPE I INTERFERON PATHWAY ASSAYS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES - SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW (SLR) AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONSENSUS TERMINOLOGY FROM A EULAR TASKFORCE
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 415-415
  • Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
    • The interferon (IFN) pathway is a complex system with multiple proteins and diverse downstream effects on gene and protein expression. IFNs have been implicated in multiple RMDs. Despite significant potential, IFN assays have not progressed into clinical practice.Objectives:To perform a SLR on IFN assays in RMDs and propose a consensus terminology.Methods:OvidMedline, Embase and Web of Science were searched for reports of IFN and RMDs up to October 2019. Information about the properties of assays measuring type I IFN and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. Terminology was agreed through an interactive consensus process with reference to the existing evidence.Results:10037 abstracts were identified. 275 fulfilled eligibility criteria, and were used for data extraction. Some used more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 275 papers generated data on 393 methods. There was great heterogeneity in the methods used and presentation of results. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), Plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). All papers fulfilled Face Validity. Due to lack of gold standard for IFN-I pathway activation, evidence of criterion validity was variable. Concurrent validity was presented for n=150 assays. The terminology used to describe aspects of type I IFN pathway activation was not consistent, so a consensus terminology for IFN research (Table 1) was proposed by the taskforce.Table 1.Consensus terminologyTermAbbreviationDefinitionInterferonIFNProteins with anti-viral activity; IFNs are mediators of an anti-viral response. They belong to the Type I, Type II and Type III IFN families.Type I interferonIFN-IThe IFNs alpha, beta, omega, kappa, epsilon, secreted by any nucleated cell, and binding to the IFNAR, which is expressed on any nucleated cell.Type II interferonIFN-IIIFN gamma, mostly secreted by T cells, binding to the IFNGR, which is expressed on most leucocytes.Type III interferonIFN-IIIIFN lambda, which are structurally more similar to IL-10 but share downstream signalling and gene expression with IFN-I.Interferon-stimulated genesISGsGenes whose expression is known to be upregulated by any kind of IFN. Individual ISGs may not exclusively represent Type I IFN pathway activation.Type I Interferon pathway activationAny evidence for function of the components of the Type I IFN pathway. This includes: secretion of a Type I IFN protein, binding to the IFNAR, initiation of JAK/STAT signalling pathways, expression of IFN-stimulated genes, expression of IFN-stimulated proteins.Type I interferon pathway assayAn assay measuring one or more components of the Type I IFN pathway at a molecular or functional level.Interferon stimulated gene expression signatureA qualitative description of coordinated expression of a set of ISGs that is indicative of Type I IFN pathway activation.Interferon stimulated gene expression scoreA quantitative variable derived from expression of a defined set of ISGs that is indicative of Type I IFN pathway activation.Interferon stimulated protein scoreA variable derived from expression of a defined set of soluble biomarkers known to be upregulated by IFN, although not specific for Type I IFN.InterferonopathyMonogenic diseases in which there is constitutive Type I IFN pathway activation with a causal role in pathology. The clinical picture may resemble rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. However, most diseases with IFN pathway activation are not Interferonopathies.Conclusion:Diverse methods have been reported as IFN assays and these differ in what elements of type IFN-I pathway activation they measure. The taskforce consensus terminology on type I IFN reporting should be considered for research and clinical applications.Disclosure of Interests:Agata Burska: None declared, Javier Rodriguez Carrio: None declared, Philip G Conaghan: None declared, Willem A Dik: None declared, Robert Biesen: None declared, Maija-leena Eloranta: None declared, Giulio Cavalli: None declared, Marianne Visser: None declared, Dimitrios Boumpas: None declared, George Bertsias: None declared, Marie Wahren-Herlenius: None declared, Jan Rehwinkel: None declared, Marie-Louise Frémond: None declared, Mary K. Crow Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Lilly, Shannon Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Lars Ronnblom Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Edward Vital Speakers bureau: GSK, Consultant of: AURINIA, SANDOZ, GSK, AstraZeneca, Roche, Modus, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Marjan Versnel: None declared
  •  
6.
  • Burska, Agata, et al. (författare)
  • Type I interferon pathway assays in studies of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases : a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider
  • 2023
  • Ingår i: RMD Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2056-5933. ; 9:1
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology.MethodsThree databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology.ResultsOf 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced.ConclusionsDiverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No 'gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.
  •  
7.
  •  
8.
  • Parodis, Ioannis, et al. (författare)
  • De novo lupus nephritis during treatment with belimumab
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: Rheumatology. - : Oxford University Press. - 1462-0324 .- 1462-0332. ; 60:9, s. 4348-4354
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objective: In light of reports of de novo LN during belimumab (BLM) treatment, we sought to determine its frequency and contributing or protective factors in a real-life setting.Methods: Patients with SLE who received BLM between 2011 and 2017 at five European academic practices were enrolled (n=95) and followed longitudinally for a median time of 13.1months [interquartile range (IQR): 6.0-34.7]; 52.6% were anti-dsDNA positive, 60.0% had low complement levels, and 69.5% had no renal involvement prior to/at BLM initiation [mean disease duration at baseline: 11.4(9.3)years]. Age- and sex-matched patients with non-renal SLE who had similar serological profiles, but were not exposed to BLM, served as controls (median follow-up: 132.0months; IQR: 98.3-151.2).Results: We observed 6/66 cases (9.1%) of biopsy-proven de novo LN (4/6 proliferative) among the non-renal BLM-treated SLE cases after a follow-up of 7.4months (IQR: 2.7-22.2). Among controls, 2/66 cases (3.0%) of de novo LN (both proliferative) were observed after 21 and 50months. BLM treatment was associated with an increased frequency and/or shorter time to de novo LN [hazard ratio (HR): 10.7; 95% CI: 1.7, 67.9; P=0.012], while concomitant use of antimalarial agents along with BLM showed an opposing association (HR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97; P=0.046).Conclusion: Addition of BLM to standard-of-care did not prevent LN in patients with active non-renal SLE, but a favourable effect of concomitant use of antimalarials was implicated. Studies of whether effects of B-cell activating factor inhibition on lymphocyte subsets contribute to LN susceptibility are warranted.
  •  
9.
  •  
10.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 14

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy