Background: Reports describing post-vaccine autoimmune phenomena, in previously healthy individuals, increased the concerns regarding the risk of disease flare-ups in patients with immune diseases. We aimed to assess the potential risk of disease flare-up, after receiving the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) vaccine, during a follow-up period of 6 months. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study, enrolling the patients with autoimmune- and immune-mediated diseases who voluntarily completed our questionnaire, both online and during hospital evaluations. Based on their decision to receive the vaccine, the patients were divided into two groups (vaccinated and non-vaccinated). Participants who chose not to receive the vaccine served as a control group in terms of flare-ups. Results: A total of 623 patients, 416 vaccinated and 207 non-vaccinated, were included in the study during hospital evaluations (222/623) and after online (401/623) enrolment. There was no difference concerning the risk of flare-up between vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients (1.16, versus 1.72 flare-ups/100 patients-months, p = 0.245). The flare-ups were associated with having more than one immune disease, and with a previous flare-up during the past year. Conclusions: We did not find an increased risk of flare-up following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune-/immune-mediated diseases, after a median follow-up of 5.9 months. According to our results, there should not be an obvious reason for vaccine hesitancy among this category of patients.
Clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biologic agents can be influenced by their pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. The present study evaluated the concordance between serum drug and antidrug levels as well as the clinical response in RA patients treated with biological agents who experience their first disease exacerbation
while being on a stable biologic treatment. 154 RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX), infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADL), or etanercept (ETN) were included. DAS28, SDAI, and EULAR response were assessed at baseline and reevaluated at precise time intervals. At the time of their first sign of inadequate response, patients were tested for both serum drug level and antidrug antibodies level. At the next reevaluation, patients retreated with RTX that had detectable drug level had a better EULAR response (P = 0.038) with lower DAS28 and SDAI scores
(P = 0.01 and P = 0.03). The same tendency was observed in patients treated with IFX
and ETN regarding EULAR response (P = 0.002 and P = 0.023), DAS28 score (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003), and SDAI score (P = 0.001 and P = 0.026). Detectable biologic drug levels correlated with a better clinical response in patients experiencing their first RA inadequate response while being on a stable biologic treatment with RTX, IFX, and ETN.
Understanding the factors influencing the rationing of nursing care is crucial for any quality control intervention in healthcare services. Occupational factors such as workload, night shifts, management style and organization of work have a potential influence. There are few studies specifically designed to evaluate these factors in relation with nurses’ work. In this study, we investigate several occupational factors influencing the quality of work in a sample of hospital nurses in order to identify the most important influencers of stress at work. The article describes the conceptual framework of the study, the population, the methods and the expected results. We also present a brief review of recent studies related to occupational risk factors and the perceived quality of care provided by Romanian nurse population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.