Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: There is a lack of real-life clinical data for biosimilar etanercept, an anti-TNF blocking fusion protein. We describe the comparable efficacy and safety of originator and biosimilar etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a real-life clinical setting. Our data confirm that a biosimilar etanercept can be safely used as first-line treatment as well as in patients switched from a previous originator compound.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of originator and biosimilar etanercept in a cohort of RA patients attending two Italian hospitals.

Methods: The study involved 81 consecutive adult RA patients treated for at least 6 months with originator or biosimilar etanercept and considered their clinical and laboratory data, concomitant medications, and adverse events at baseline, and after 3 and 6 months of treatment.

Results: Group 1 included 51 patients taking originator etanercept; group 2 included 30 taking biosimilar etanercept, including 19 who had been switched from the reference product. Despite a significant baseline difference in clinical disease activity, one-way analysis of variance showed that the two groups were clinically comparable after 6 months of treatment, and the same was true when only those receiving etanercept as first-line biological treatment were considered. Nine patients discontinued the treatment due to inefficacy or adverse events, which were never serious and were only reported in group 1.

Conclusions: The efficacy and safety profiles of originator and biosimilar etanercept are comparable in RA patients in a real-life clinical setting. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak had an effect on healthcare.

Objectives: To evaluate the presentation and management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting with acute appendicitis to the emergency department of a large tertiary center during March and April 2020. Clinical features, diagnostic workup, and management were compared.

Results: Seventy-four patients presented with acute appendicitis during the pandemic compared to 60 patients during the same time the year before. There were no significant differences in patient demographics: age (P = 0.65), gender (P = 0.73), smoking status (P = 0.48). During COVID-19 patients were more likely to complain of right lower quadrant pain (100% vs. 78.3%, P < 0.01). Rates of surgical treatment was similar (83.8% vs. 81.7%, P = 1); mean operative time was longer during COVID-19 (63 ± 23 vs. 52 ± 26 minutes, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in intra-operative findings including the presence of appendiceal perforation (16.3% vs. 14.5%, P = 0.8), abscess (6.1% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.73), or involvement of cecum or terminal ileum (14.28% vs. 19.63%, P = 1). Postoperative treatment with antibiotics was more prevalent during COVID-19 (37.1% vs. 18%, P = 0.04). Length of stay (1.82 ± 2.04 vs. 2.74 ± 4.68, P = 0.2) and readmission rates (6% vs. 11.3%, P =0.51) were similar.

Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect the presentation, clinical course, management, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute appendicitis.

This focus article is a theoretical reflection on the ethics of allocating respirators to patients in circumstances of shortage, especially during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Israel. In this article, respirators are placeholders for similar life-saving modalities in short supply, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines and intensive care unit beds.

In the article, I propose a system of triage for circumstances of scarcity of respirators. The system separates the hopeless from the curable, granting every treatable person a real chance of cure. The scarcity situation eliminates excesses of medicine, and then allocates respirators by a single scale, combining an evidence-based scoring system with risk-proportionate lottery.

The triage proposed embodies continuity and consistency with the healthcare practices in ordinary times. Yet, I suggest two regulatory modifications: one in relation to expediting review of novel and makeshift solutions and the second in relation to mandatory retrospective research on all relevant medical data and standard (as opposed to experimental) interventions that are influenced by the triage

Background: Immune cell counts in blood in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may be useful prognostic biomarkers of disease severity, mortality, and response to treatment.

Objectives: To analyze sub-populations of lymphocytes at hospital admission in survivors and deceased from severe pneumonia due to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of healthcare workers confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 in convalescents (control group) and healthy controls (HC) diagnosed with severe COVID-19. Serum samples were taken at hospital admission and after recovery. Serum samples ≥ 25 days after onset of symptoms were analyzed for lymphocyte subpopulations through flow cytometry. Descriptive statistics, Kruskall-Wallis test, receiver operating characteristic curve, calculation of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed.

Results: We included 337 patients: 120 HC, 127 convalescents, and 90 severe COVID-19 disease patients (50 survivors, 40 deceased). For T cells, total lymphocytes ≥ 800/μL, CD3+ ≥ 400/μL, CD4+ ≥ 180/μL, CD8+ ≥ 150/μL, B cells CD19+ ≥ 80/μL, and NK ≥ 34/μL subsets were associated with survival in severe COVID-19 disease patients. All subtypes of lymphocytes had higher concentrations in survivors than deceased, but similar between HC and convalescents. Leukocytes ≥ 10.150/μL or neutrophils ≥ 10,000/μL were associated with increased mortality. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥ 8.5 increased the probability of death in severe COVID-19 (odds ratio 11.68).

Conclusions: Total lymphocytes; NLR; and levels of CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and NK cells are useful as biomarkers of survival or mortality in severe COVID-19 disease and commonly reach normal levels in convalescents.

Hospitalization of ulcerative colitis patients is needed in severe exacerbation of the disease or for managing complications. In this systematic review and meta-analysis the prevalence of hospitalization in ulcerative colitis and possible predictive factors are discussed. A systematic literature search of English language publications that were published before 31 December 2019 was conducted. Retrospective cohort studies describing hospitalizations of UC patients were included. Meta-analysis was performed by using comprehensive meta-analysis software. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated for the number of patients hospitalized. Seven studies and 15 datasets were found that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In total, the studies included 2067 patients from six countries. The event rates for the number of patients hospitalized in a follow-up duration of 42,320 patient-years and for the number of patients underwent operation in a follow-up of 24,650 patient-years were 0.065 (95%CI 0.063–0.068) and 0.019 (95%CI 0.017–0.021), respectively. More studies during the era of biologics need to be performed to identify the factors predictive of hospitalization and surgery with UC. Prevention of inflammation and UC complications may prevent hospitalization and the need for surgical treatment