scholarly journals Clinical practice audit on the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis in the Netherlands

Author(s):  
Ebru Dirikgil ◽  
Jacqueline T. Jonker ◽  
Sander W. Tas ◽  
Cornelis A. Verburgh ◽  
Darius Soonawala ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 380-381
Author(s):  
E. Dirikgil ◽  
A. Rutgers ◽  
S. Tas ◽  
C. A. Verburgh ◽  
D. Soonawala ◽  
...  

Background:ANCA associated vasculitis (AAV) is a complex, rare systemic autoimmune disease with an estimated prevalence of 5-18 patients per 100.000 individuals worldwide. Managing a low prevalent disease can be challenging which is reflected in clinical practice variation.Objectives:This study investigated clinical practice variation of the care for AAV patients in the Netherlands.Methods:In a nationwide online survey, AAV patients were selected from academic and non-academic centers. Within centers, patients were eligible when they had a confirmed diagnosis of microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (eGPA) according to the treating physician. There were no exclusion criteria. In each center a comparable number of patients was included. Data capture encompassed a wide set of variables on diagnosis, management and outcomes.Results:From December 2018 to November 2019, 230 AAV patients were recruited in 6 non-academic and 3 academic hospitals (120 vs 110 patients respectively). Differences in clinical diagnoses (GPA, MPA and eGPA) were observed between non-academic and academic centers (p=0.05), which was mainly caused by a higher number of MPA patients in non-academic centers. The year of diagnosis was comparable (median 2013 [2009-2016], p=0.150). The median follow up since diagnosis was 4.8 years [1.8-9.6] with a median in-hospital time-to-diagnosis of 13 days [2-50]. Patients were diagnosed at a mean age of 63 years (±11.18) in non-academic centers and 53 years (±16.92) in academic centers (p<0.001). Besides steroids, oral cyclophosphamide was the most preferred drug (54%) for induction therapy, whereas rituximab was given significantly more often as (part of the) induction therapy in patients treated in academic centers compared to patients in non-academic centers (27% vs 8%, p<0.001). In non-academic centers pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis was prescribed significantly less (76% vs 91%, p=0.003). Also, screening for Staphylococcus aureus carriership was significantly less (17% vs 68%, p<0.001). With respect to mortality and co-morbidity, 22 patients (10%) died, 100 patients (44%) had at least one infection and 24 patients (10%) suffered from at least one malignancy. We observed no significant differences on these endpoints between academic and non-academic centers.Conclusion:The present study highlights important practice variation in the management of AAV between academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. A high proportion of patients is treated with oral cyclophosphamide as induction therapy while rituximab is increasingly used in academic centers. Rates of mortality, infections and malignancies were not different. Altogether, this study raises awareness into the variation of management for AAV patients and allows the identification of areas for improvement of clinical care for Dutch AAV patients.Disclosure of Interests:Ebru Dirikgil: None declared, Abraham Rutgers: None declared, Sander Tas: None declared, Cornelis A. Verburgh: None declared, Darius Soonawala: None declared, A. Elisabeth Hak: None declared, Hilde H.F. Remmelts: None declared, Daphne IJpelaar: None declared, Gozewijn D. Laverman: None declared, Jacob M. van Laar Grant/research support from: MSD, Genentech, Consultant of: MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BMS, H.J. Bernelot Moens: None declared, Peter Verhoeven: None declared, Willem Jan W. Bos: None declared, Y.K. Onno Teng Grant/research support from: GSK, Consultant of: GSK, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Novartis


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1222.1-1222
Author(s):  
L. Joos ◽  
S. Gonzalez Chiappe ◽  
T. Neumann ◽  
A. Mahr

Background:Co-prescribing 2-mercaptoethane sodium sulfonate (mesna) with cyclophosphamide (CYC) for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) aims to prevent the potential urotoxic effects of CYC. The evidence for this practice is often considered weak, and there may be some diversity in what practitioners do in clinical practice.Objectives:To investigate current clinical practice related to prescribing mesna prophylaxis or not and the underlying rationale for CYC-treated patients with AAV.Methods:We searched MEDLINE for publications with the MeSH term “ANCA-associated vasculitis” over a 10-year period up to October 2020. Email addresses of authors of these publications were extracted from the online information available in MEDLINE. These authors were invited by email to participate in an anonymous online SurveyMonkey survey of 21 to 24 questions asking about the characteristics of the respondent, their experience with AAV, and their practice in using CYC to treat AAV and using mesna in CYC-treated patients with AAV and the underlying rationale. Respondents were eligible to take the full survey if they were involved in deciding and/or monitoring therapy with CYC for patients with AAV. We compared 15 response variables to identify factors associated with the use or not of mesna. Response variables with multiple categories were first analyzed across all categories; if the omnibus test result was significant, additional analyses were used to identify the categories, which were the sources of group separation. We analyzed by-country variations for only countries with ≥ 10 respondents. Statistical analyses involved Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. For multiple-response variables, the Rao-Scott correction was applied.Results:The invitation for the electronic survey was emailed twice in October 2020 to 1,374 unique email addresses; 156 individuals responded; 139 were eligible and completed the survey. The 139 participants were from 34 countries and were essentially MDs (98%) who mainly worked in rheumatology (50%), nephrology (25%) or internal medicine/clinical immunology (18%). Mesna was given in conjunction with CYC systematically, never, or on a case-by-case basis by 68%, 19% and 13% of respondents, respectively. As compared with systematic mesna-prescribers, never/occasional mesna-prescribers reported a longer time since receiving their degree as a health professional (≥ 15 years: 80% vs 50%, P<0.001), were more frequently based in England/United States (than in France/Germany/Italy) (78% vs 21%, P<0.001), had longer involvement in care of patients with AAV (≥ 15 years: 62% vs 37%, P=0.006), had less practice in using intermittent pulse therapy as the exclusive/predominant CYC administration scheme (62% vs 89%, P<0.001), and, as a rationale underpinning their mesna practice, had less adherence to local operational procedures (47% vs 73%, P=0.002) or (inter)national management guidelines for AAV (16% vs 49%, P<0.001). Never/occasional versus systematic use of mesna did not differ across medical specialties (5 categories, P=0.192) or healthcare settings (3 categories, P=0.437), and was not associated with prior experience of CYC-related urotoxic events (3 categories, P=0.495) or severe mesna toxicity issues (3 categories, P=0.957). The confidence that their practice reflected the best possible patient care did not differ between never/occasional and systematic mesna-prescribers (7-point Likert scale, P=0.794).Conclusion:Practice with regard to prescribing mesna in conjunction with CYC to treat AAV is heterogeneous, although systematic mesna use prevailed over never or occasional use. The decision to prescribe or not mesna may be based more on circumstantial than structural reasons.Disclosure of Interests:Lukas Joos: None declared, Solange Gonzalez Chiappe: None declared, Thomas Neumann Speakers bureau: GSK, Grant/research support from: Xifor, Alfred Mahr Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, Consultant of: Amgen, Celgene, Roche, Chugai


Author(s):  
Paul C. D. Bank ◽  
Leo H. J. Jacobs ◽  
Sjoerd A. A. van den Berg ◽  
Hanneke W. M. van Deutekom ◽  
Dörte Hamann ◽  
...  

AbstractThe in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation (IVDR) will take effect in May 2022. This regulation has a large impact on both the manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) and clinical laboratories. For clinical laboratories, the IVDR poses restrictions on the use of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). To provide a uniform interpretation of the IVDR for colleagues in clinical practice, the IVDR Task Force was created by the scientific societies of laboratory specialties in the Netherlands. A guidance document with explanations and interpretations of relevant passages of the IVDR was drafted to help laboratories prepare for the impact of this new legislation. Feedback from interested parties and stakeholders was collected and used to further improve the document. Here we would like to present our approach to our European colleagues and inform them about the impact of the IVDR and, importantly we would like to present potentially useful approaches to fulfill the requirements of the IVDR for LDTs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1464.2-1465
Author(s):  
S. Mendly ◽  
G. Boutsalis

Background:AAV (ANCA-associated vasculitis) is a group of progressive, rare, severe autoimmune diseases1,2. AAV can affect blood vessels in different parts of the body resulting in damage to vital organs such as the lungs, kidneys, nervous system, gastrointestinal system, skin, eyes, and heart.2 There are currently no approved therapies for remission-induction in patients with AAV. The current treatment armamentarium for AAV is comprised of various immunosuppressive therapies in combination with steroid treatment. Understanding clinical practice gaps in the management of AAV, can inform development of tools to improve physician practices.Objectives:This medical education activity aims to assess physicians’ knowledge on the various manifestations of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV), current guideline-recommended treatment strategies for remission induction in patients with AAV, as well as recent clinical trial data for combination therapies used for remission induction.Methods:A 24-question survey consisting of multiple-choice knowledge and case-based questions was made available to nephrologists and rheumatologists without monetary compensation or charge. The questions were designed to evaluate knowledge regarding the various manifestations of AAV and the results from clinical trials that have compared the efficacy of combination therapies used for remission induction in patients with AAV. As well as application of guideline-recommended therapies and clinical trial data for remission induction in patients with AAV within clinical practice. The survey launched online on a website dedicated to continuous professional development. (www.medscape.org/viewarticle/920320) on July 15, 2020. Data were collected until October 1, 2020.Results:363 nephrologists and 190 rheumatologists completed the survey. Physicians demonstrated gaps in the following areas:TopicIncorrect Responses to Knowledge and Clinical Decision-Making Questions (%)NephrologistsRheumatologistsSystemic diseases associated with AAV59%45%How to confirm diagnosis of AAV42%25%Therapy selection to induce remission that would be consistent with guidelines recommendations71%51%Guideline-recommended therapy for patients that do not respond to the induction regimen32%34%Definition of refractory disease95%94%Most effective maintenance strategy for a patient once remission is achieved80%64%Where would an emerging therapy such as a C5a receptor inhibitor fit into the therapeutic armamentarium of AAV?62%47%What are the guideline-recommended therapies to reduce remission in patients without organ-threatening disease?71%51%Most effective maintenance strategy for a patient once remission is achieved80%64%Guideline-recommendations on length of time to continue maintenance therapy31%35%Conclusion:This educational research on assessment of physicians’ (nephrologists and rheumatologists) clinical practices yielded important insights into clinical gaps related to understanding of the disease pathophysiology and progression of AAV, guideline recommendations on diagnosing and managing AAV with guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs), strategies for the management of relapsing and refractory disease in AAV and positioning of emerging therapies in the treatment paradigm.References:[1]www.medscape.org/viewarticle/920320.[2]Hutton HL, et al. Semin Nephrol 2017;37(5):418–35.[3]Al-Hussain T, et al. Adv Anat Pathol 2017;24(4):226–34.Disclosure of Interests:Sarah Mendly Grant/research support from: Supported by an independent educational grant from Vifor Pharma, George Boutsalis Grant/research support from: Supported by an independent educational grant from Vifor Pharma


Midwifery ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne Engels ◽  
Nicole Verheijen ◽  
Margot Fleuren ◽  
Henk Mokkink ◽  
Richard Grol

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-587
Author(s):  
Carolien K. M. Vermeulen ◽  
Anne Lotte W. M. Coolen ◽  
Wilbert A. Spaans ◽  
Jan Paul W. R. Roovers ◽  
Marlies Y. Bongers

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 212-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo A J M de Wit ◽  
Bjorn Winkens ◽  
Carlota Mestres Gonzalvo ◽  
Kim P G M Hurkens ◽  
Rob Janknegt ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document