Search

Background The evolving COVID-19 pandemic has and continues to present a threat to health system capacity. Rapidly expanding an existing acute care physician workforce is critical to pandemic response planning in large urban academic health systems. Intervention The Medical Emergency-Pandemic Operations Command (MEOC)—a multi-specialty team of physicians, operational leaders, and support staff within an academic Department of Medicine in Calgary, Canada—partnered with its provincial health system to rapidly develop a comprehensive, scalable pandemic physician workforce plan for non-ventilated inpatients with COVID-19 across multiple hospitals. The MEOC Pandemic Plan comprised seven components, each with unique structure and processes. Methods In this manuscript, we describe MEOC’s Pandemic Plan that was designed and implemented from March to May 2020 and re-escalated in October 2020. We report on the plan’s structure and process, early implementation outcomes, and unforeseen challenges. Data sources included MEOC documents, health system, public health, and physician engagement implementation data. Key Results From March 5 to October 26, 2020, 427 patients were admitted to COVID-19 units in Calgary hospitals. In the initial implementation period (March–May 2020), MEOC communications reached over 2500 physicians, leading to 1446 physicians volunteering to provide care on COVID-19 units. Of these, 234 physicians signed up for hospital shifts, and 227 physicians received in-person personal protective equipment simulation training. Ninety-three physicians were deployed on COVID-19 units at four large acute care hospitals. The resurgence of cases in September 2020 has prompted re-escalation including re-activation of COVID-19 units. Conclusions MEOC leveraged an academic health system partnership to rapidly design, implement, and refine a comprehensive, scalable COVID-19 acute care physician workforce plan whose components are readily applicable across jurisdictions or healthcare crises. This description may guide other institutions responding to COVID-19 and future health emergencies.

Genetic testing results are currently obtained approximately 1 year after referral to a medical genetics team for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). We evaluated a mainstream genetic testing (MGT) pathway whereby the nephrology team provided pre-test counseling and selection of patients with suspected ADPKD for genetic testing prior to direct patient interaction by a medical geneticist.A multidisciplinary team of nephrologists, genetic counselors, and medical geneticists developed an MGT pathway for ADPKD using current testing criteria for adult patient with suspected ADPKD and literature from MGT in oncology.An MGT pathway was assessed using a prospective cohort and compared to a retrospective cohort of 56 patients with ADPKD who received genetic testing using the standard, traditional pathway prior to implementing the MGT for ADPKD. The mainstream pathway was evaluated using time to diagnosis, diagnostic yield, and a patient survey to assess patient perceptions of the MGT pathway.We assessed 26 patients with ADPKD using the MGT and 18 underwent genetic testing with return of results. Of them, 52 patients had data available for analysis in the traditional control cohort. The time for return of results using our MGT pathway was significantly shorter with a median time to results of 6 months compared to 12 months for the traditional pathway. We identified causative variants in 61% of patients, variants of uncertain significance in 28%, and 10% had negative testing which is in line with expectations from the literature. The patient surveys showed high satisfaction rates with the MGT pathway.This report is an evaluation of a new genetic testing pathway restricted to a single, publicly funded health care center. The MGT pathway involved a prospective collection of a limited number of patients with ADPKD with comparison to a retrospective cohort of patients with ADPKD evaluated by standard testing.A MGT pathway using clearly defined criteria and commercially available gene panels for ADPKD can be successfully implemented in a publicly funded health care system to reduce the time required to obtain genetic results.Actuellement, les résultats du dépistage génétique pour la maladie polykystique rénale autosomique dominante (ADPKD) sont obtenus environ un an après l’aiguillage en médecine génique. Nous avons évalué un parcours de dépistage génétique intégré (DGI) où l’équipe de néphrologie fournit des conseils pré-dépistage et sélectionne les patients soupçonnés d’ADPKD pour un test génétique avant l’interaction directe du patient avec un généticien médical.Une équipe multidisciplinaire constituée de néphrologues, de conseillers en génétique et de généticiens médicaux a développé un parcours de DGI à partir des critères existants pour les patients adultes soupçonnés d’ADPKD et de la littérature portant sur le DGI en oncologie.Le parcours de DGI a été évalué dans une cohorte prospective puis comparé à une cohorte rétrospective de 56 patients atteints d’ADPKD ayant subi un dépistage génétique selon le parcours traditionnel, avant la mise en œuvre d’un parcours de DGI pour l’ADPKD. Le parcours intégré a été évalué en tenant compte du temps requis pour poser le diagnostic, du rendement diagnostique et d’un sondage auprès des patients évaluant leurs perceptions à l’égard du parcours lui-même.Le parcours de DGI a permis d’évaluer 26 patients atteints d’ADPKD, dont 18 ont subi des tests génétiques avec retour des résultats. Dans la cohorte témoin (dépistage traditionnel), 52 patients disposaient de données disponibles pour l’analyse. Le délai médian pour l’obtention des résultats était significativement plus court avec le parcours de DGI qu’avec le parcours traditionnel (6 mois c. 12 mois). Des variantes causales ont été relevées chez 61 % des patients, 28 % des patients présentaient des variantes de signification incertaine et 10 % ont obtenu des résultats négatifs, ce qui est conforme aux attentes posées par les résultats rapportés dans la littérature. Les sondages menés auprès des patients ont montré des taux de satisfaction élevés à l’égard du parcours de DGI.Ce rapport constitue l’évaluation d’un nouveau parcours de dépistage génétique limitée à un seul centre de soins de santé public. Ce parcours de DGI a été évalué dans une cohorte prospective formée d’un nombre limité de patients atteints d’ADPKD par rapport à une cohorte rétrospective de patients atteints d’ADPKD évalués par la méthode traditionnelle.Un parcours de DGI utilisant des critères clairement définis et des panels génétiques pour l’ADPKD disponible commercialement peut être mis en œuvre avec succès dans un système de santé public et accélérer l’obtention des résultats génétiques.

Funder: European League Against Rheumatism; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008741, Objective: To update the 2012 EULAR/ERA–EDTA recommendations for the management of lupus nephritis (LN). Methods: Following the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was performed. Members of a multidisciplinary Task Force voted independently on their level of agreeement with the formed statements. Results: The changes include recommendations for treatment targets, use of glucocorticoids and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) and management of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The target of therapy is complete response (proteinuria 1 g/24 hours despite renin–angiotensin–aldosterone blockade, MMF in combination with glucocorticoids is preferred. Assessment for kidney and extra-renal disease activity, and management of comorbidities is lifelong with repeat kidney biopsy in cases of incomplete response or nephritic flares. In ESKD, transplantation is the preferred kidney replacement option with immunosuppression guided by transplant protocols and/or extra-renal manifestations. Treatment of LN in children follows the same principles as adult disease. Conclusions: We have updated the EULAR recommendations for the management of LN to facilitate homogenization of patient care.

ObjectivesTo analyse the current evidence for the management of lupus nephritis (LN) informing the 2019 update of the EULAR/European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association recommendations.MethodsAccording to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a PubMed systematic literature review was performed, from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018. Since this was an update of the 2012 recommendations, the final level of evidence (LoE) and grading of recommendations considered the total body of evidence, including literature prior to 2012.ResultsWe identified 387 relevant articles. High-quality randomised evidence supports the use of immunosuppressive treatment for class III and class IV LN (LoE 1a), and moderate-level evidence supports the use of immunosuppressive treatment for pure class V LN with nephrotic-range proteinuria (LoE 2b). Treatment should aim for at least 25% reduction in proteinuria at 3 months, 50% at 6 months and complete renal response (ConclusionsThere is high-quality evidence to guide the initial and subsequent phases of class III/IV LN treatment, but low-to-moderate quality evidence to guide treatment of class V LN, monitoring and optimal duration of immunosuppression.

Background: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is clinically and immunologically heterogeneous with a variable response to treatment. MASTERPLANS is an MRC-funded consortium that seeks to identify immunophenotypic subgroups of patients that predict response to therapy. Autoantibody profiles can differentiate subgroups of patients and have potential to predict response to treatment. Objectives: To determine whether known and novel autoantibodies are associated with response to rituximab (RTX), and analyse the association between these antibodies and disease involvement in various organ systems. Methods: Serum was obtained from 224 SLE patients in the BILAG Biologics Registry who received rituximab according to NHS England criteria (2). Patients were recruited if they were starting a first cycle of rituximab for active SLE (BILAG A or 2xBILAG B) despite previous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil. Evidence of any single organ system involvement previous or current was taken as having a BILAG score of A-D but not E. Disease activity was measured using BILAG-2004. Clinical response was defined as improvement by >=1 grade in active BILAG-2004 systems with no worsening in other systems. Autoantibodies were measured by immunoprecipitation of proteins by sera from 35S-labelled K562 cell lines, followed by SDS-PAGE separation and autoradiography. Autoantibodies not able to be detected by this technique (anti-Ro52, anti-dsDNA and aCL) were measured by ELISA. Autoantibody data was analysed in IBM SPSS and GraphPad Prism v8.2. Association between autoantibodies and RTX response was analysed using binary logistic interaction terms and Pearson’s Chi-Square test. Results: Of the 224 patients (201 female, 23 male, median age 40 years) the most common system involvement from the 9 BILAG domains was musculoskeletal (164 patients) and the least ophthalmic (11 patients). Patients with anti-Ro52 and anti-U1RNP/Sm had more frequent involvement of mucocutaneous (p There were 136 patients with sufficient data to define as either responders (n=67) or non-responders (n=69) to RTX at 6 months. RTX responders had a higher frequency of anti-U1RNP/Sm compared to non-responders (Figure 1). Further Pearson’s Chi-Square analysis showed a significant association between presence of anti-U1RNP/Sm and better response to RTX (p Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the presence of U1RNP/Sm autoantibodies in a cohort of patients who have received treatment with RTX is associated with more frequent musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous involvement and predicts a more favourable response to treatment. Acknowledgments : Funded by a grant from the Medical Research Council, grant number MR/M01665X/1. BILAG BR has been funded by unrestricted educational donations from Roche, GSK and LUPUS UK. Part-funded by a grant from LUPUS UK. Disclosure of Interests: : Danyang Li: None declared, Hui Lu: None declared, Juliet Dunphy: None declared, Theresa Smith: None declared, Edward Vital Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Becton Dickinson and GSK, Ian N. Bruce Grant/research support from: Genzyme Sanofi, GSK, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, UCB, Iltoo, and Merck Serono, Speakers bureau: UCB, Neil McHugh: None declared

Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious complication of major noncardiac surgery. Risk prediction models for AKI following noncardiac surgery may be useful for identifying high-risk patients to target with prevention strategies. Methods We conducted a systematic review of risk prediction models for AKI following major noncardiac surgery. MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and Web of Science were searched for articles that (i) developed or validated a prediction model for AKI following major noncardiac surgery or (ii) assessed the impact of a model for predicting AKI following major noncardiac surgery that has been implemented in a clinical setting. Results We identified seven models from six articles that described a risk prediction model for AKI following major noncardiac surgeries. Three studies developed prediction models for AKI requiring renal replacement therapy following liver transplantation, three derived prediction models for AKI based on the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) criteria following liver resection and one study developed a prediction model for AKI following major noncardiac surgical procedures. The final models included between 4 and 11 independent variables, and c-statistics ranged from 0.79 to 0.90. None of the models were externally validated. Conclusions Risk prediction models for AKI after major noncardiac surgery are available; however, these models lack validation, studies of clinical implementation and impact analyses. Further research is needed to develop, validate and study the clinical impact of such models before broad clinical uptake.