Nursing Considerations for Infusion Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Versus Malignancy

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 350-360
Author(s):  
Nicole Furfaro ◽  
Philip J. Mease
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 60-61
Author(s):  
Helena Thiem

Schmier J et al. Costs of Providing Infusion Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Hospitalbased Infusion Center Setting. Clin Ther 2017; 39: 1600–1617 Für betroffene Patienten hat die rheumatoide Arthritis lebenslang schwerwiegende Folgen. Eine angemessene Therapie ist deshalb unabdingbar. In den Vereinigten Staaten wird eine Vielzahl dieser Patienten stationär anhand einer Infusionstherapie behandelt. Die Autoren ermitteln für vier gängige Präparate, mit welchen Kosten diese Behandlung für die Krankenhäuser verbunden ist.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1813.1-1813
Author(s):  
B. Lamoreaux ◽  
M. Francis-Sedlak ◽  
R. Holt ◽  
J. Rosenbaum

Background:Autoimmune inflammatory conditions of the eye may be associated with rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and granulomatosis with polyangiitis. This is also observed with thyroid eye disease (TED). Loss of immune tolerance to the thyroid stimulating hormone receptor has thyroidal consequences and nearly 40% of patients with Graves’ disease also have clinically evident Graves’ orbitopathy or TED.1TED results from tissue inflammation that causes retro orbital fat expansion2and extraocular muscle enlargement2and stiffening.3Because the orbital cavity is bony and of limited volume, proptosis and, in severe cases, optic nerve compression, can result. In many patients, muscle changes also cause ocular motility issues and double-vision. Because TED can have a similar presentation to other inflammatory orbital diseases (e.g., granulomatosis with polyangiitis) and Graves’ disease patients frequently have other autoimmune conditions (10% of Graves’s patients also have rheumatoid arthritis),4rheumatologists are likely to care for, or even diagnose, patients with TED.Objectives:This analysis sought to understand rheumatologists’ knowledge, and degree of participation in the treatment, of TED including referral patterns from ophthalmologists and endocrinologists for infusion therapies.Methods:Rheumatologists practicing in the United States attended an educational session and agreed to complete a 12-item survey regarding TED awareness, referral patterns, and management.Results:Of the 47 rheumatologists surveyed, 45 (96%) were familiar with TED. Ten (21%) physicians reported managing patients with TED, but the majority of physicians (62%) reported that they co-managed other autoimmune diseases in patients who also had TED. Additionally, 98% and 64% of polled rheumatologists had received referrals from ophthalmologists and endocrinologists, respectively, for autoimmune disease management or infusion therapy. Ophthalmology referrals for intravenous (IV) medication administration were most frequently for biologics (82%), but some referrals were also made for corticosteroids (2%) or other medication (13%) infusions. Only 23% of rheumatologists had administered a biologic specifically for TED (rituximab: 17%, tocilizumab: 2%, other: 4%), but 89% expressed an interest in administering a TED-specific monoclonal antibody therapy, awaiting FDA approval.Conclusion:Nearly all surveyed rheumatologists were aware of the signs and symptoms of TED, although most did not actively manage or administer medication for TED. Given the high level of interest in infusing novel, TED-specific biologics, rheumatologists may become an integral part of TED patient management with the approval of a new biologic, teprotumumab, for thyroid eye disease.References:[1]Bartley GB, et al.Am J Ophthalmol1996;121:284-90.[2]Forbes G, et al.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol1986;7:651-656.[3]Simonsz HJ, et al.Strabismus1994;2:197-218.[4]Cardenas Roldan J, et al.Arthritis2012 2012;864907.Disclosure of Interests:Brian LaMoreaux Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Megan Francis-Sedlak Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Robert Holt Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, James Rosenbaum Consultant of: AbbVie, Corvus, Eyevensys, Gilead, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, UCB Pharma; royalties from UpToDate


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jehan J. El-Jawhari ◽  
Yasser El-Sherbiny ◽  
Dennis McGonagle ◽  
Elena Jones

The pathogenesis of the autoimmune rheumatological diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is complex with the involvement of several immune cell populations spanning both innate and adaptive immunity including different T-lymphocyte subsets and monocyte/macrophage lineage cells. Despite therapeutic advances in RA and SLE, some patients have persistent and stubbornly refractory disease. Herein, we discuss stromal cells' dual role, including multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) also used to be known as mesenchymal stem cells as potential protagonists in RA and SLE pathology and as potential therapeutic vehicles. Joint MSCs from different niches may exhibit prominent pro-inflammatory effects in experimental RA models directly contributing to cartilage damage. These stromal cells may also be key regulators of the immune system in SLE. Despite these pro-inflammatory roles, MSCs may be immunomodulatory and have potential therapeutic value to modulate immune responses favorably in these autoimmune conditions. In this review, the complex role and interactions between MSCs and the haematopoietically derived immune cells in RA and SLE are discussed. The harnessing of MSC immunomodulatory effects by contact-dependent and independent mechanisms, including MSC secretome and extracellular vesicles, is discussed in relation to RA and SLE considering the stromal immune microenvironment in the diseased joints. Data from translational studies employing MSC infusion therapy against inflammation in other settings are contextualized relative to the rheumatological setting. Although safety and proof of concept studies exist in RA and SLE supporting experimental and laboratory data, robust phase 3 clinical trial data in therapy-resistant RA and SLE is still lacking.


1986 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
James V. Bertouch ◽  
Peter J. Roberts-Thomson ◽  
Malcolm D. Smith ◽  
Timothy G. Woodruff ◽  
Peter M. Brooks ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 1600-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordana Schmier ◽  
Kristine Ogden ◽  
Nancy Nickman ◽  
Michael T. Halpern ◽  
Mary Cifaldi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Coskun Zateri ◽  
Murat Birtane ◽  
İlknur Aktaş ◽  
Selda Sarıkaya ◽  
Aylin Rezvani ◽  
...  

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to investigate the medical treatment attitudes of patients with spondylarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were using biological drugs during the novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patients and methods: In this multi-center, cross-sectional study, a total of 277 patients (178 males, 99 females; median age: 45 years; range, 20 to 77 years) who were using biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for rheumatic diseases and were reached by phone between June 1st, 2020 and June 30th, 2020 were included. Demographic characteristics, working status, type of the rheumatic disease, comorbidities, smoking habits, and type of the bDMARDs were recorded. Disease activity was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The patients were asked whether they continued the treatment plan, as it was before or changed and, if changed, how they changed the plan and what happened after the change. Results: Of the patients, 229 had spondylarthritis and 48 had RA. A total of 36.1% of the patients were smokers, and the most common comorbidity was hypertension (17.3%). Totally, 5.8% of the patients had a history of contact with a COVID-19 positive person. Only three (1.1%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and none of them died. Of the patients, 64.3% continued their treatment, while 35.7% adopted various changes. Most patients made the decision about the treatment plan on their own (n=160, 57.8%), while 38.3% of them consulted their physicians and 13.9% of them consulted any health staff. The only significant parameter for changing the drug course was receiving intravenous bDMARDs (by infusion at hospital) (p=0.001). These patients had also a higher disease activity as measured by VAS, compared to the patients receiving non-infusion therapy (p=0.021). As a result of these changes, severity of the symptoms increased in 91 (32.9%) patients. Disruption of regular biological treatment and prior infusion therapy more likely worsened the complaints (p<0.001 and p=0.024, respectively). Conclusion: Intravenous bDMARD therapy seems to be the main factor affecting the continuity of the treatment in the pandemic period. During the pandemic period, alternative treatment options should be considered other than infusion therapy not to interrupt the treatment of these patients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S124
Author(s):  
P Santos-Moreno ◽  
D Buitrago-Garcia ◽  
L Villarreal ◽  
N Alvis-Zakzuk ◽  
M Carrasquilla ◽  
...  

1969 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-584
Author(s):  
H Sasaki ◽  
T Wakutani ◽  
S Oda ◽  
Y Yamazaki

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document