Spanish Rheumatology Society and Hospital Pharmacy Society Consensus on recommendations for biologics optimization in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis

The aim of this study was to establish guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies for health professionals involved in the management of patients with RA, AS and PsA. Recommendations were established via consensus by a panel of experts in rheumatology and hospital pharmacy, based on analysis of available scientific evidence obtained from four systematic reviews and on the clinical experience of panellists. The Delphi method was used to evaluate these recommendations, both between panellists and among a wider group of rheumatologists. Previous concepts concerning better management of RA, AS and PsA were reviewed and, more specifically, guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies used to treat these diseases were formulated. Recommendations were made with the aim of establishing a plan for when and how to taper biologic treatment in patients with these diseases. The recommendations established herein aim not only to provide advice on how to improve the risk:benefit ratio and efficiency of such treatments, but also to reduce variability in daily clinical practice in the use of biologic therapies for rheumatic diseases

Efficacy and safety of out-of-hospital intravenous metoprolol administration in anterior ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: insights from the METOCARD-CNIC trial

We seek to examine the efficacy and safety of prereperfusion emergency medical services (EMS)–administered intravenous metoprolol in anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing eventual primary angioplasty. This is a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction trial population, who all eventually received oral metoprolol within 12 to 24 hours. We studied patients receiving intravenous metoprolol by EMS and compared them with others treated by EMS but not receiving intravenous metoprolol. Outcomes included infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and safety by measuring the incidence of the predefined combined endpoint (composite of death, malignant ventricular arrhythmias, advanced atrioventricular block, cardiogenic shock, or reinfarction) within the first 24 hours. From the total population of the trial (N=270), 147 patients (54%) were recruited during out-of-hospital assistance and transferred to the primary angioplasty center (74 intravenous metoprolol and 73 controls). Infarct size was smaller in patients receiving intravenous metoprolol compared with controls (23.4 [SD 15.0] versus 34.0 [SD 23.7] g; adjusted difference –11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] –18.6 to –4.3). Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the intravenous metoprolol group (48.1% [SD 8.4%] versus 43.1% [SD 10.2%]; adjusted difference 5.0; 95% CI 1.6 to 8.4). Metoprolol administration did not increase the incidence of the prespecified safety combined endpoint: 6.8% versus 17.8% in controls (risk difference –11.1; 95% CI –21.5 to –0.6). Out-of-hospital administration of intravenous metoprolol by EMS within 4.5 hours of symptom onset in our subjects reduced infarct size and improved left ventricular ejection fraction with no excess of adverse events during the first 24 hours.