SARS-COV-2 infection has spread worldwide since it originated in December 2019, in Wuhan, China. The pandemic has largely demonstrated the resilience of the world's health systems and is the greatest health emergency since World War II. There is no single therapeutic approach to the treatment of COVID-19 and the associated immune disorder. The lack of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) has led different countries to tackle the disease based on case series, or from results of observational studies with off-label drugs. We as rheumatologists in general, and specifically rheumatology fellows, have been on the front line of the pandemic, modifying our activities and altering our training itinerary. We have attended patients, we have learned about the management of the disease and from our previous experience with drugs for arthritis and giant cell arteritis, we have used these drugs to treat COVID-19.

Background:Gout has a prevalence >2.5% in the Spanish adult population. It is a chronic disease that without proper treatment causes pain, joint deformity and increased cardiovascular risk and mortality. Recent advances have demonstrated that if correctly treated the disease can be controlled and even ‘cured’. Most gouty patients are diagnosed and treated by general practitioners (GPs). There is evidence that the management if these patients is not good neither at Rheumatology Units nor at Primary Healthcare (PHC) centers.Several causes of this mismanagement can be found in the literature.Objectives:Design and evaluation of the results of a questionnaire created from a bibliographic search focused on areas of improvement of gout management in PHC.Methods:A search was made in Pubmed to identify the main barriers described in the management of patients with gout in primary care. The terms used were: “Gout”, “primary healthcare” and “education”. A Google Form of gout knowledge and management questionnaire was designed, taking into account what is described in the literature. The Google Form was sent to all GP from an urban area via mail and to other contacts via WhatsApp and twitter.Results:Responses were obtained from 224 GPs; 69.5% were women; 73.1% had between 11 and 30 years of professional experience; 96.4% answered that gouty are mostly controlled in primary care; 99.6% performs the diagnosis of gout without analysis of synovial fluid and 17% diagnosed only by clinics without urate levels; 55.9% of GPs do not use any reference guide. Of those who use, the 73% use GUIPCLINGOT and 40% use SEMGs one; 80.5% have not done any gout course in the last 5 years; 26% did not have access to a rheumatologist to confirm the gout diagnosis; only 30.8% knew the therapeutic objective of the urate lowering therapy (ULT); 28.6% considered the beginning of ULT after the first attack; 62% believed that the most important part of the treatment was changing diet and lifestyles; 88.8% did not perform any specific education for these patients by the nurse; just 37.2% carried out a treat-to-target strategy to lower urate levels.Conclusion:The questionnaire identifies multiple points of improvement for the management of this pathology in accordance with the described in the literature. Most GPs are unaware of the therapeutic objective of the ULT.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

No abstract

Background:Lyme disease (LD) is a multisystemic animal-borne disease caused by spirochetes of theBorrelia burgdorferi s.lcomplex and transmitted by ticks of the speciesIxodes ricinus. In Spain, most cases occur in rural areas of the north-east region with a peak of maximum incidence between spring and early autumn. The diagnosis is based on a history of potential exposure to ticks, the recognition of characteristic clinical manifestations and serological testing.Objectives:To assess the suitability of serological study for the diagnosis of LD in an urban area.Methods:Retrospective observational study that included all LD serology tests made between April 2017 and September 2019 at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona covering a population of 450,000 people. Demographic data and the medical department that requested the serology test were collected along with serology test results. The medical records of patients with positive serology were consulted to identify which patients were finally diagnosed with LD along with their clinical manifestations, treatment and outcome.Results:A total of 574 serological tests were included and 78 (13.59%) of them were positive. Only 1.04% (6) of all serological tests belonged to patients finally diagnosed with LD. The department that made most requests was Neurology (37.3%) followed by Infectious Diseases (21%), Internal Medicine (14.5%), Emergency Medicine (4.7%), Dermatology (4.5%), Critical Care Medicine (2.3%) and Rheumatology (2.1%). 50% of the diagnosed patients were women with a mean age of 57.7±7.7DE years. In 50% of diagnosed cases, patients remembered a tick bite during activities in the mountain or rural areas. The most common clinical manifestations were erythema migrans (67%), non-inflammatory arthralgias (50%), fatigue and malaise (67%), together with one case of meningoencephalitis and one of knee monoarthritis. All diagnosed patients received antibiotic treatment with ceftriaxone (33%) or doxycycline (66%). Only one patient presented post-Lyme syndrome.The serological test for LD in our center had a total individual cost of 15.75 eur, so the cost of the 574 requests was 9,040.5 eur. 7,812 eur corresponded to negative results and 1,134 eur to false positive results.Conclusion:Our study indicates the overuse of diagnostic testing for LD with implications for patient care and cost-effective health management. In the absence of a history of potential exposure to infected vector ticks or characteristic clinical manifestations, unnecessary microbiological tests should not be performed.Disclosure of Interests:David Lobo Prat: None declared, Luís Sainz Comas: None declared, Virginia Pomar: None declared, Ana Milena Millán Arciniegas: None declared, HyeSang Park: None declared, Andrea García-Guillén: None declared, Sicylle Jeria: None declared, Ana Laiz: None declared, Berta Magallares: None declared, Ivan Castellví Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Kern Pharma, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Patricia Moya: None declared, Cesar Díaz-Torné: None declared, Susana P. Fernandez-Sanchez: None declared, Hector Corominas: None declared

Background:Cryoglobulinemia (CG) is a rare phenomenon related to haematological disorders, infections and autoimmune diseases. Age and renal involvement are known prognostic markers.Objectives:To describe the differential clinical features and the prognostic factors in a cohort of patients diagnosed with CG non-associated with hepatotropic viruses.Methods:A descriptive, retrospective study of a cohort comprised of 252 cryoglobulin positive samples, obtained from the immunology laboratory database of a tertiary hospital attending 450,000 people over 1 year. 186 patients with CG positive samples were included, 87 of which were not associated with neither hepatitis B nor C virus. Demographic, clinical, serological and pathological data were collected. Nonparametric variables were compared using a Wilcoxon test.Results:Out of 186 reviewed patients, 87 (46.7%) are included in this study. The mean age at CG diagnosis was 60 (± 16) years. Mixed CG was the predominant subtype, detected in 66 (75.9%) patients, 10 of which (11.5%) were associated with glomerulonephritis (GN) with compatible biopsy, 17 (19.5%) with peripheral neuropathy (PN), 29 (33.3%) with non-erosive arthritis and 10 (11.5%) with leukocytoclastic vasculitis confirmed by skin biopsy. The clinical, epidemiological and serological characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1.Figure 1.Ing et al’s Nomogram of parsimonious model.Table 1.Clinical, epidemiological and serical characteristics of patients with CGSex, female / male, n (%)65/22 (74.7/25.3)Age at diagnosis, years ± SD60 ± 16CG subtype, n (%)- Type 1, n (%)27 (30)- Mixed, n (%)61 (70)ASSOCIATED DISEASES- pSS, n (%)37 (42,5)- LES, n (%)9 (10,3)- SSc, n (%)7 (8,05)CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS- Skin, n (%)30 (34,5)- Purpura, n (%)14(16)- Ulcers, n (%)5 (5,7)- Acral ischemia, n (%)2 (2,3)- Acrocyanosis by cold, n (%)7 (8)- Raynaud, n (%)19 (21,8)- Peripheric Neuropathy, n (%)17 (19,5)- Non-erosive arthritis, n (%)29 (33,3)- Glomerulonephritis, n (%)10 (11,5)LABORATORY- β2M +(>1.8 mg/L) mean3.9- RCP (mg/L) p503.7- ESR (mm/hour) p5028- RF + (>20 UI/mL) p50124- Anti Ro52 + /Anti Ro60 + n, (%)42 (48.3)- Low C3 n, (%)48 (55.1)- Low C4 n, (%)36 (41.4)In the comparative analysis of patients with CG and Beta 2 microglobulin (β2M), CG and rheumatoid factor (RF), those with high β2M (>1.8 mg / L) presented significantly more GN (p0.016) and PN (p0.013). However, the association of RF with either GN (p0.948) or PN (p0.645) was not significant. Also, high β2M was significantly related to complement consumption of C4 (p: 0.015) but not of C3 (p: 0.063). In the 30 (34.5%) patients with skin manifestations, high β2M showed no statistically significant association. The main systemic autoimmune diseases associated were primary Sjögren’s Syndrome (pSS) 37 (42.5%), Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) 9 (10.3%) and Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) 7 (8.05%).Conclusion:A direct association between presence of elevated levels of β2M and the existence of progression to glomerulonephritis and peripheral neuropathy is found in our cohort. No correlation is found between the presence of CG and other serological markers of autoimmunity except low C4. CG with elevated β2M does not associate with greater skin involvement or arthritis.References:[1]A.C. Desbois et al. Cryoglobulinemia: An update in 2019. Joint Bone Spine (2019)[2]Cacoub P, Cryoglobulinemia Vasculitis, The American Journal of Medicine (2015)Disclosure of Interests:None declared