No abstract

ObjectivesEarly diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is crucial for a patient outcome but hampered by heterogenous manifestation and a lack of specific biomarkers. We recently showed that fluorescence optical imaging (FOI) can differentiate between patients with confirmed and suspected PsA. This study aims to follow-up (FU) patients with confirmed and suspected PsA focusing on patients with a change from suspected to confirmed PsA by the use of FOI in comparison with musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS).MethodsFollow-up examination of patients included in the study performed by Erdmann-Keding et al. in which FOI of both hands was performed in a standardized manner using three predefined phases (p1–p3) and PrimaVista Mode (PVM). The comparison was drawn to grayscale–power Doppler (GS/PD) MSUS of the clinically dominant hand (wrist, MCP, PIP, DIP 2–5) from dorsal or palmar.ResultsPatients with a change from suspected to diagnosed PsA showed an increased prevalence of joints with pathological enhancement in FOI (p = 0.046) with an unchanged joint distribution pattern, especially with a dominant involvement of DIP joints. Compared to the baseline, these patients were three times more common to show enhancement in FOI p3 at FU. Newly detected pathologic joints by FOI (PVM, p2) and MSUS at FU were positively associated with the change of diagnosis from suspected to confirmed PsA (FOI: AUC 0.78; GSUS: AUC 0.77).ConclusionFluorescence optical imaging appears to be a helpful tool to detect early PsA and to distinguish between acute and chronic disease stages. It could thereby become a suitable tool as a screening method to select psoriasis patients with an indication for further rheumatological evaluation.

No abstract

More than 80% of patients who had a cancer disease reported using phytotherapy. (8, 9) When using herbal medicine, knowledge of potential side effects is essential for counselling the patient. Purpose: The aim of this paper was therefore to collect information on the side effects of popular medicinal plants and to compare different official sources of information reporting on side effects of phytotherapeutics. Methods: Four different databases were reviewed from 09 February 2021 to 01 March 2022. These were the German monographs of the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), the European monographs of the EMA, the website “About Herbs” and the Red List. One selected 171 plants of the German monographs with indications or effects that could be relevant for supportive cancer treatment. Results: Out of 171 selected plants, only twenty plants were found in all four sources. The compilation of the data shows a huge disparity of the number of plants listed as well as the type and frequency of side effects described. There is only one example where two sources agree: in case of Cynara cardunculus L., EMA and the Red List show the same side effects. Conclusion: In summary, physicians should not rely exclusively on one source, but should inform themselves about side effects on several sources to ensure the best possible safety for the patient. Since there seems to be too little data on certain medicinal plants for which no side effect has been documented, more clinical studies are needed.