Israel Medical Association Journal

In this review, I described the development of the healthcare system in Theresienstadt during the Holocaust, from the establishment of the camp in late 1941 through 1945. Despite the horrific conditions, the Jews established a highly organized and relatively efficient system that was able to deliver excellent medical care to those eligible to receive care. The major factors that enabled development of the system included the heroic efforts of the high-level providers, the trust of patients, a public health approach to prevent epidemics and the perceived propaganda value of a good healthcare system to the Nazi oppressor. There were many challenges, particularly an informal triage policy that largely excluded medical care from the elderly (above age 60 years), mentally ill, and disabled. There were often difficult relations between caregivers related to ageism, gender, and national origin of the providers. Despite these adversities and the eventual futility due to the murder of the vast majority of the inhabitants, the Jews in Theresienstadt clung to life and tried their best to conduct a civilized society, in a large part through the delivery of excellent medical care.

Abstract

Background: The familial Mediterranean fever 50 score (FMF50) score was recently devised to define response to treatment and as an outcome measure for clinical trials of FMF.

Objectives: To examine the performance of the FMF50 score in a previously published trial of rilonacept for patients whose FMF was resistant or intolerant to colchicine.

Methods: We reanalyzed the data from our controlled trial of rilonacept vs. placebo in 14 patients with colchicine-resistant or intolerant FMF using the FMF50 score as the primary outcome. The FMF50 score required improvement by ≥ 50 in five of six criteria (attack frequency, attack duration, global patient assessment, global physician assessment, frequency of attacks with arthritis, and levels of acute-phase reactants without worsening of the sixth criterion).

Results: In the original trial rilonacept was considered effective according to the primary outcome measure (differences in the attack frequency) with eight analyzable patients considered responders and four as non-responders. According to the FMF50 score, only two participants would have been considered responders to rilonacept, and one to placebo. Only two participants had ≥ 50% differences between rilonacept and placebo in five criteria. The major explanation for non-response to treatment was that with rilonacept the duration of attack decreased by ≥ 50% in only 2 participants and 5 participants had no attacks of arthritis either during screening (before randomization) or during treatment with rilonacept.

Conclusions: The proposed FMF50 score did not differentiate well between responders and non-responders compared to the a priori defined primary outcome measure in this successful controlled study.