AB0584 MANAGEMENT OF REFERRALS, TREATMENT STRATEGY, AND RESEARCH CHALLENGES IN POLYMYALGIA RHEUMATICA AMONGST RHEUMATOLOGISTS WORLDWIDE: A QUESTIONNAIRE BASED STUDY

BackgroundPolymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is diagnosed and treated by both general practitioners (GP) and rheumatologists. How rheumatologists around the world manage the referral process of patients with PMR from GP’s has not been described. EULAR/ACR guidelines recommend initial prednisolone doses between 12.5 and 25 mg, but it is unknown if guidelines are followed in daily clinical practice1. In addition, the understanding of challenges for recruitment to clinical trials in PMR is currently limited.ObjectivesThis study aims to describe the management of referrals, treatment strategy, and recruitment to clinical trials in PMR among rheumatologists worldwide.MethodsAn English language questionnaire was drafted by a working group of rheumatologists and GP’s from 6 different countries. Questions concerned: 1: respondent, 2: referrals, 3: prednisolone, and 4: barriers to research. Questionnaires were distributed to rheumatologists via members of the International PMR/GCA study group. Answers were collected via an online survey tool (Redcap), from 2nd of November 2021 to 27th of January 2022. Countries were grouped by income and geographical region based on the World bank classifications. Data were weighted by number of inhabitants in a country, based on the United Nations age specific population count, divided by number of respondents in a country. Countries with more than 20 respondents were included.ResultsResults from 27 countries were analysed including 1000 responders in total (Figure 1). There was large variation in time from referral to first assessment, initial dose of prednisolone was high, duration of treatment was relatively short, and a large proportion of patients with newly diagnosed PMR received prednisolone prior to rheumatological evaluation (Table 1). Concerning the 15% of respondents who performed research in PMR, 52% had participated in clinical trials and 56% of the responders experienced difficulties with recruitment.Table 1.Characteristics of reponders, referrals, and treatment.Geographical regionIncomeThe worldEurope and Central AsiaNorth AmericaLatin AmericaEast Asia and PacificSouth AsiaMiddle East and AfricaHigh- income countriesLow- and middle- income countriesRespondersResponders (n), Completed questionnaire (total)875 (1000)294 (304)78 (81)136 (152)53 (53)53 (72)261 (338)446 (458)429 (542)Experience as rheumatologist (years)11 (6-20)12 (6-20)7 (4-20)11 (6-23)21 (10-30)7 (4-10)9 (5-18)11 (5-22)8 (5-12)ReferralsGP’s can discuss patients prior to referral, %647979575860677461Referred patients seen (%)100 (90-100)100 (90-100)100 (100-100)100 (100-100)100 (95-100)100 (100-100)100 (60-100)100 (100-100)100 (90-100)Evaluation &gt; 2 weeks after referral, %26498060216185815PrednisoloneStarted prior to rheumatological evaluation (%)50 (20-50)60 (30-80)70 (50-80)50 (10-50)30 (20-50)50 (20-80)20 (0-50)50 (30-80)50 (10-70)Initial dose (mg)20 (15-40)20 (15-20)20 (15-20)20 (20-40)15 (15-15)20 (15-40)20 (15-40)15 (15-20)20 (15-40)Initial dose &gt; 25 mg, %32964104143642Duration of treatment (months)12 (6-12)12 (12-18)12 (10-18)6 (3-12)18 (12-18)12 (6-12)6 (3-12)12 (12-18)9 (6-12)Data presented as weighted median (interquartile range) unless otherwise stated.GP: general practitionerConclusionThis is the first description of current practice in managing referrals and treatment of PMR by rheumatologists worldwide. In general, median treatment duration was according to EULAR/ACR guidelines, but initial dose of prednisolone was often higher than recommended in many parts of the world. PMR patients were often seen more than two weeks after referral, and treatment had started prior to first rheumatological evaluation.References[1]Dejaco C, Singh YP, Perel P, et al. 2015 Recommendations for the management of polymyalgia rheumatica: a European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology collaborative initiative. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 2015; 74(10): 1799-807.AcknowledgementsThis study was endorsed by the international PMR/GCA study group.Disclosure of InterestsAgnete Overgaard Donskov: None declared, Sarah Mackie: None declared, Ellen-Margrethe Hauge Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Sanofi, Sobi, MSD, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi, Sobi, MSD, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novo Nordic Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Danish Regions Medicine Grants, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, CARLOS TORO GUTIÉRREZ: None declared, Ib Hansen: None declared, Andrea Hemmig: None declared, Aatke van der Maas: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Berit Dalsgaard NIelsen Paid instructor for: Roche, Karen Douglas: None declared, Richard Conway Speakers bureau: Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Abbvie,, Elena Rezus: None declared, Bhaskar Dasgupta: None declared, Sara Monti: None declared, Eric Matteson Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim,, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim,, Sebastian E. Sattui Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Mark Matza: None declared, Vanessa Ocampo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Andrea Bran: None declared, Simone Appenzeller Grant/research support from: GSK, Annelise Goecke Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Recalcine. Consultant Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, NELLY COLMAN MC LEOD Speakers bureau: Laboratorios FAPASA (Farmacéutica Paraguay), Helen Keen Speakers bureau: Roche, Abbvie, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Latika Gupta: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Ghita Harifi Speakers bureau: Abvie, Johnson and johnson, Lilly, Novartis, Mariama Erraoui: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis., Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene - Algorithm, Bristol-Myers Squibb - NewBridge, Pfizer, Nizar Abdulateef Al-Ani: None declared, Adeola Ajibade: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Line Frølund: None declared, Max Yates: None declared, Victor Pimentel-Quiroz: None declared, Andre Lyrio: None declared, Maria Sandovici: None declared, Kornelis van der Geest Speakers bureau: Roche, Toby Helliwell Grant/research support from: Valneva, Elisabeth Brouwer Speakers bureau: Roche, Christian Dejaco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos and Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Roche, Galapagos and Sanofi, Kresten Keller: None declared</jats:sec

Asymptomatic infection in family contacts of patients with human visceral leishmaniasis in Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil Infecção assintomática em contactantes de pacientes com leishmaniose visceral humana em Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil

The Brazilian city of Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul State, has experienced an urban outbreak of visceral leishmaniasis since 2000. In 2002, due to the increase in the number of cases, 46 families with cases of visceral leishmaniasis were studied to verify the prevalence of asymptomatic infection in household contacts. Indirect immunofluorescence and ELISA showed a 36.4% positive infection rate. There were no cases of symptomatic disease among these contacts. There was no statistically significant difference in gender or age. Median age was 21 years, and the 10-19-year age bracket was the most heavily affected (23%). As for family characteristics, no differences were observed in schooling or family income; most families (58.7%) owned their homes, which were built of masonry (97.8%) and had adequate infrastructure. All the families reported what were probably phlebotomine sand flies in the peridomicile. In conclusion, asymptomatic visceral leishmaniasis infection is frequent and occurs in both males and females, regardless of age.<br>O Município de Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil, foi alvo de uma epidemia de leishmaniose visceral a partir de 2000. Em 2002, devido ao incremento de casos, estudou-se 46 famílias que apresentavam um caso de doença para verificar-se o percentual de positividade de infecção assintomática por leishmaniose visceral em contactantes. Encontrou-se 36,4% de positividade pelos testes sorológicos Reação de Imunofluorescência Indireta e/ou imunoenzimático ELISA, sem diferença estatisticamente significativa quanto ao sexo e faixa etária. A mediana de idade foi de 21 anos, sendo a faixa etária mais acometida de 10 a 19 anos (23%). Quanto às características familiares não observaram-se diferenças quanto ao nível de instrução e renda familiar; a moradia, em sua maioria, era própria (58,7%), em alvenaria (97,8%), com infra-estrutura adequada. Todas as famílias relataram a presença de provável flebotomíneo no peridomicílio. Conclui-se que a infecção assintomática por leishmaniose visceral é freqüente, ocorrendo em homens e mulheres, independente de faixa etária

Mesozoic dinosaurs from Brazil and their biogeographic implications

The record of dinosaur body-fossils in the Brazilian Mesozoic is restricted to the Triassic of Rio Grande do Sul and Cretaceous of various parts of the country. This includes 21 named species, two of which were regarded as nomina dubia, and 19 consensually assigned to Dinosauria. Additional eight supraspecific taxa have been identified based on fragmentary specimens and numerous dinosaur footprints known in Brazil. In fact, most Brazilian specimens related to dinosaurs are composed of isolated teeth and vertebrae. Despite the increase of fieldwork during the last decade, there are still no dinosaur body-fossils of Jurassic age and the evidence of ornithischians in Brazil is very limited. Dinosaur faunas from this country are generally correlated with those from other parts of Gondwana throughout the Mesozoic. During the Late Triassic, there is a close correspondence to Argentina and other south-Pangaea areas. Mid-Cretaceous faunas of northeastern Brazil resemble those of coeval deposits of North Africa and Argentina. Southern hemisphere spinosaurids are restricted to Africa and Brazil, whereas abelisaurids are still unknown in the Early Cretaceous of the latter. Late Cretaceous dinosaur assemblages of south-central Brazil are endemic only to genus or, more conspicuously, to species level, sharing closely related taxa with Argentina, Madagascar, Indo-Pakistan and, to a lesser degree, continental Africa.<br>O registro osteológico de dinossauros no Mesozóico brasileiro está restrito a rochas triássicas do Rio Grande do Sul e estratos cretáceos de várias partes do país. Isto inclui 21 espécies nominais, sendo duas referidas como nomina dubia, e 19 consensualmente classificadas como dinossauros. Oito táxons supraespecíficos adicionais baseados em material fragmentado e diversas pegadas são conhecidos no Brasil. De fato, a maior parte dos espécimes é composta de dentes isolados e vértebras. Apesar do aumento em trabalhos de campo na última década, não há exemplar esqueletal de dinossauro no Jurássico brasileiro, e é escassa a evidência de Ornithischia. Faunas dinossaurianas aqui registradas são em geral correlatas com aquelas da Pangéia durante o Mesozóico. No Triássico Superior, há uma correspondência próxima com a Argentina e outras regiões sul-gondwânicas. Faunas do Cretáceo médio do nordeste brasileiro são semelhantes às dos depósitos coevos do norte da África e Argentina. Registros de espinossaurídeos no hemisfério sul estão restritos à África e Brasil, enquanto abelissaurídeos não são conhecidos no Cretáceo Inferior deste último. Assembleias de dinossauros da região sul e central do Brasil são endêmicas apenas em nível de gênero e, mais conspicuamente, espécie, compartilhando táxons proximamente relacionados com assembleias da Argentina, Indo-Paquistão, e, num menor grau, África continental