RESUMO
ABSTRACT Objectives: To analyze initial and follow-up features of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) diagnosed during hospitalization. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records: two groups were studied, a) SLE diagnosed during hospitalization (SLEin), b) SLE diagnosed on an outpatient basis (SLEout). Results: 123 patients were assessed, 87% female, mean age at diagnosis was 34 years and 45 (37%) of them were SLEin. Patients in the SLEin group had a median of 144 days from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis of SLE vs. 287 days in the SLEout group (p = 0.04). Initially, SLEin had an average SLEDAI of 10 vs. 8 in SLEout (p = 0.004) and anti-dsDNA was positive in 71% vs. 53% in SLEout (p = 0.07). Within the first 6 months, the average cumulative glucocorticoid dose was 6493 mg in SLEin patients vs. 3563 mg in SLEout (p < 0.001) and immunosuppressant usage was higher in SLEin: 62% vs. 26% in SLEout (p<0.001). Within the first year, SLEin's kidney biopsies showed lupus nephritis III or IV in 31% vs. 12% in SLEout (p = 0.003, log-rank test). Within the first 2 years, 6 SLEin patients died vs. 1 SLEout patient (p = 0.02) and SLEin patients had more damage as measured by SLICC/ACR Damage Index (median 0, range 25%-75% 0-1 vs. median 0, range 25%-75% 0-0 in SLEout; p = 0.04). Conclusions: SLEin are initially more active, require higher doses of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants, have more significant kidney involvement, and present more damage and greater mortality in the short term.
RESUMEN Objetivo: Analizar las características de los pacientes con lupus eritematoso sistêmico (LES) diagnosticados durante una hospitalización. Métodos: Análisis retrospectivo de historias clínicas. Se estudiaron dos grupos: a) LES diagnosticado durante la hospitalización (SLEin) y b) LES diagnosticado de forma ambulatoria (SLEout). Resultados: Se evaluaron 123 pacientes (87% mujeres); edad promedio al diagnóstico 34 arios; el 37% de ellos era SLEin. Los pacientes del grupo SLEin tuvieron una mediana de 144 días desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta el diagnóstico, vs. 287 días en SLEout (p = 0,04). Inicialmente, los pacientes SLEin tenían un SLEDAI promedio de 10, vs. 8 en SLEout (p = 0,004) y anti-dsDNA positivo en el 71%, vs. el 53% en SLEout (p = 0,07). A los 6 meses, la dosis acumulada de glucocorticoides (promedio) fue de 6.493 mg en SLEin vs. 3.563 mg en SLEout (p<0,001), y el uso de inmunosupresores fue mayor en SLEin: 62% vs. 26% en SLEout (p< 0,001). Al año se halló nefritis lúpica clase III o IV en el 31% de SLEin vs. el 12% en SLEout (Log Rank Test: p = 0,003). A los 2 años, 6 pacientes de SLEin murieron, vs. un paciente de SLEout (p = 0,02). Los pacientes con SLEin tuvieron más daño (índice de daño SLICC/ACR: mediana 0, rango 25-75%: 0-1, vs. mediana 0, rango 25-75%: 0-0 en SLEout; p = 0,04). Conclusiones: Los pacientes SLEin fueron inicialmente más activos, requirieron mayores dosis de glucocorticoides e inmunosupresores, tuvieron una afectación renal más significativa y presentaron más daño y mayor mortalidad a corto plazo.
Assuntos
Humanos , Feminino , Adulto , Doenças da Pele e do Tecido Conjuntivo , Doenças do Tecido Conjuntivo , Lúpus Eritematoso SistêmicoRESUMO
The objective of the study was to analyse resources for rheumatology training, and speciality certification and recertification requirements in Argentina. Information was gathered regarding vacancies, entry requirements, duration and validity of the specialist degree in every residency and postgraduate course in adult rheumatology. The following aspects were analysed: monitoring authority, certification and recertification requirements, and mandatory recertification. Six out of 36 universities offer rheumatology postgraduate courses. Out of 65 vacancies, 36 (55%) are implemented by a National Public University in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA), and 46 (70%) are in CABA. There are 32 vacancies for rheumatology residencies in 7 out of 24 districts, 16 of them (50%) in CABA. There are 2- to 3-year postgraduate courses; entry requirements range from 1-year experience in internal medicine to either complete residency or specialist degree in internal medicine. Training formats vary from full-time university residency to either university-based courses with part-time dedication in a rheumatology service without residency or non-university courses with part-time dedication. Not every specialist degree is automatically homologated in every jurisdiction. Provincial governments and colleges of physicians are the certification and recertification authorities; medical school was included in one district. Recertification is mandatory in only 8 districts; 40-50% of the process is achieved by merely practising as a rheumatologist. Most of the training resources are concentrated in CABA. Although there are various options, not all of them are automatically homologated. Recertification is not mandatory nationwide, and a significant part of the process involves practising as a rheumatologist.