Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Epidemiological studies have shown a connection between ethnic origin and the incidence and outcome of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Objective: To evaluate the SLE outcomes among Ashkenazi Jews, non-Ashkenazi Jews, and Arabs.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who were diagnosed with SLE and followed in lupus clinics at two large tertiary medical centers. The data were obtained from patient medical records. Patients were stratified into three ethnic origins: Ashkenazi Jews, non-Ashkenazi Jews, and Arabs. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, development of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) 2K ≤ 4 at last visit.

Results: We included 570 patients in this study. The Arab group showed the highest number of SLE classification criteria at diagnosis and last encounters compared to non-Ashkenazi and Ashkenazi Jewish groups (6.0 vs. 5.0 and 4.0, respectively at diagnosis, P < 0.001; 8.0 vs. 7.0 and 6.0 at last visit, P = 0.01). In multivariate models, Arab patients had three times higher risk of all-cause mortality than Ashkenazi Jews (hazard ratio 2.99, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.32–6.76, P = 0.009). ESKD was similar among the study groups. Low disease activity (SLEDAI 2K ≤ 4) at last visit was lower in the Arab group than the Ashkenazi Jews (odds ratio 0.50, 95%CI 0.28–0.87, P = 0.016), depicting a medium-to-high disease activity among the former.

Conclusions: Physicians should consider the influence of the ethnicity of the SLE patient when deciding on their care plan.

Background: Guidelines recommend initiation of parenteral biologic or oral target-specific disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs/tsDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who do not adequately respond to conventional DMARDs.

Objectives: To compare the preferred route of administration of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs in RA patients who were previously treated with at least one type.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of consecutive RA patients previously prescribed bDMARDs or tsDMARDs. We analyzed the factors associated with patients' preferred route of administration.

Results: The cohort included 95 patients, mostly female (72.6%), seropositive (81.05%), mean age 63.4 ± 11.9 years. The oral route was preferred by 39 patients (41%) and 56 (59%) preferred the parenteral route. Most patients (65.9%) preferred to continue with their current route (P < 0.001). Switching from a current route was less common with patients who were currently using the oral route (13.3% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.04). Many patients (53.8%) who preferred the oral route had never experienced it before, while this was rare (3.6%) regarding the parenteral route (P = 0.0001). Employment status was associated with preference of the subcutaneous route over the intravenous route of bDMARDs (P = 0.01). Of the 21 patients who had previously experienced both parenteral and oral treatment, 16 (76.2%) preferred the oral route.

Conclusions: RA patients preferred to continue treatment with an administration route they have already experienced. However, when choosing an unexperienced route, significantly more patients preferred the oral route. Our results strengthen the understanding of patient preferences, which could improve drug adherence, compliance, and disease outcome.

Background: Osler taught that splenic infarction presents with left upper abdominal quadrant pain, tenderness and swelling accompanied by a peritoneal friction rub. Splenic infarction is classically associated with bacterial endocarditis and sickle cell disease.

Objectives: To describe the contemporary experience of splenic infarction.

Methods: We conducted a chart review of inpatients diagnosed with splenic infarction in a Jerusalem hospital between 1990 and 2003.

Results: We identified 26 cases with a mean age of 52 years. Common causes were hematologic malignancy (six cases) and intracardiac thrombus (five cases). Only three cases were associated with bacterial endocarditis. In 21 cases the splenic infarction brought a previously undiagnosed underlying disease to attention. Only half the subjects complained of localized left-sided abdominal pain, 36% had left-sided abdominal tenderness 31% had no signs or symptoms localized to the splenic area, 36% had fever, 56% had leukocytosis and 71% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels. One splenectomy was performed and all patients survived to discharge. A post hoc analysis demonstrated that single infarcts were more likely to be associated with fever (20% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) and leukocytosis (75% vs. 33%, p = 0.06)

Conclusions: The clinical presentation of splenic infarction in the modern era differs greatly from the classical teaching, regarding etiology, signs and symptoms. In patients with unexplained splenic infarction, investigation frequently uncovers a new underlying diagnosis.