Objective.We performed a systematic review of the literature to describe current knowledge of cardiovascular (CV) risk prediction algorithms in rheumatic diseases.Methods.A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases was performed. The search was restricted to original publications in English, had to include clinical CV events as study outcomes, assess the predictive properties of at least 1 CV risk prediction algorithm, and include patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or psoriasis. By design, only cohort studies that followed participants for CV events were selected.Results.Eleven of 146 identified manuscripts were included. Studies evaluated the predictive performance of the Framingham Risk Score, QRISK2, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), Reynolds Risk Score, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), Expanded Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Score for Rheumatoid Arthritis (ERS-RA), and the Italian Progetto CUORE score. Approaches to improve predictive performance of general risk algorithms in patients with RA included the use of multipliers, biomarkers, disease-specific variables, or a combination of these to modify or develop an algorithm. In both SLE and PsA patients, multipliers were applied to general risk algorithms. In studies of RA and SLE patients, efforts to include nontraditional risk factors, disease-related variables, multipliers, and biomarkers largely failed to substantially improve risk estimates.Conclusion.Our study confirmed that general risk algorithms mostly underestimate and at times overestimate CV risk in rheumatic patients. We did not find studies that evaluated models for psoriasis or AS, which further demonstrates a need for research in these populations.

Objectives To explore current management practices for polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) by general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists including implications for clinical trial recruitment. Methods An English language questionnaire was constructed by a working group of rheumatologists and GPs from 6 countries. The questionnaire focused on: 1: Respondent characteristics, 2: Referral practices, 3: Treatment with glucocorticoids, 4: Diagnostics, 5: Comorbidities, and 6: Barriers to research. The questionnaire was distributed to rheumatologists and GPs worldwide via members of the International PMR/giant cell arteritis Study Group. Results In total, 394 GPs and 937 rheumatologists responded to the survey. GPs referred a median of 25% of their suspected PMR patients for diagnosis and 50% of these were returned to their GP for management. In general, 39% of rheumatologists evaluated patients with suspected PMR >2 weeks after referral, and a median of 50% of patients had started prednisolone before rheumatologist evaluation. Direct comparison of initial treatment showed that the percentage prescribing >25 mg prednisolone daily for patients was 30% for GPs and 12% for rheumatologists. Diagnostic imaging was rarely used. More than half (56%) of rheumatologists experienced difficulties recruiting people with PMR to clinical trials. Conclusion This large international survey indicates that a large proportion of people with PMR are not referred for diagnosis, and that the proportion of treatment naïve patients declined with increasing time from referral to assessment. Strategies are needed to change referral and management of people with PMR, to improve clinical practice and facilitate recruitment to clinical trials.

A 22-year-old Caucasian man presented to hospital with pleuritic chest pain. He had had a history of a sun-sensitive rash a year prior. Workup revealed normal cardiac enzymes and chest X-ray. However, electrocardiogram revealed ST elevation and PR depression, and echocardiogram revealed a slight pericardial effusion without other findings. A diagnosis of pericarditis was made. Subsequently, he was found to be positive for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), as well as antibodies to SSA, SSB and double-stranded DNA; C3 was low, and C4 was undetectable. A diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus was made. The patient initially responded to high-dose ibuprofen. One month later, he developed a new pericardial effusion, this time with concomitant massive left-sided pleural effusion, requiring three separate thoracenteses draining a total of 6 L of pleural fluid. The recurrent effusion failed to respond to high-dose corticosteroid treatment. Owing to the severity and rapidity of the recurrence of pleural and pericardial effusion, intravenous tocilizumab was administered. The patient had excellent clinical and radiographic improvement. This case shows that tocilizumab may have a role in the treatment of intractable pleuropericardial effusion and other forms of lupus-associated serositis.

Plasmodium vivax is the most prevalent malaria parasite on the American continent. It generates a global burden of 80–100 million cases annually and represents a tremendous public health problem, particularly in the American and Asian continents. A malaria vaccine would be considered the most cost-effective measure against this vector-borne disease and it would contribute to a reduction in malaria cases and to eventual eradication. Although significant progress has been achieved in the search for Plasmodium falciparum antigens that could be used in a vaccine, limited progress has been made in the search for P. vivax components that might be eligible for vaccine development. This is primarily due to the lack of in vitro cultures to serve as an antigen source and to inadequate funding. While the most advanced P. falciparum vaccine candidate is currently being tested in Phase III trials in Africa, the most advanced P. vivax candidates have only advanced to Phase I trials. Herein, we describe the overall strategy and progress in P. vivax vaccine research, from antigen discovery to preclinical and clinical development and we discuss the regional potential of Latin America to develop a comprehensive platform for vaccine development.

A 28-year-old woman presented with an erythematous rash involving the nose, nasolabial folds, and philtrum that appeared after she had manipulated a painful vesicular lesion at the base of her nose that she believed to be a pimple. The patient received cloxacillin for presumed erysipelas and had a partial response. However, after cloxacillin therapy, worsening induration (Panel A) prompted treatment with intravenous antibiotics, which had no effect. The patient reported recent sun exposure before noticing the extent of the symptoms. Subsequent laboratory tests were positive for antinuclear antibodies, anti-Ro antibodies (antibody index, 2.7 [normal, <1.0]), and anti-La antibodies (antibody index, >8.0 [normal, <1.0]) and showed a C3 level of 1.13 g per liter (normal, 0.79 to 1.52) and a C4 level of 0.17 g per liter (normal, 0.16 to 0.38). A punch biopsy specimen of skin from the right cheek showed vacuolar interface dermatitis and perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltration of the dermis -features that are consistent with discoid lupus erythematosus, a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus is often provoked by exposure to sunlight; the rash typically extends from the cheeks over the bridge of the nose and spares the nasolabial folds. This patient received treatment with oral prednisone and hydroxychloroquine, and the rash became less prominent, with only residual skin pigmentation (Panel B).