MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of English-language articles published between 2000 and 2016, identified from MEDLINE using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The strength of available evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were developed through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS: Fourteen axial SpA treatment recommendations were developed based on evidence summaries and consensus. The first 2 recommendations cover non-pharmacological approaches to management. Recommendations 3 to 5 describe the following: the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line symptomatic treatment; the avoidance of long-term corticosteroid use; and the utility of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for peripheral or extra-articular manifestations. Recommendation 6 refers to the indications for biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Recommendation 7 deals specifically with screening for infections endemic to Asia, prior to use of bDMARDs. Recommendations 7 to 13 cover the role of bDMARDs in the treatment of active axial SpA and include related issues such as continuing therapy and use in special populations. Recommendation 14 deals with the utility of surgical intervention in axial SpA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of relevant literature from 2014 to 2016 concerning targeted therapies in RA was conducted. The RA Update Working Group evaluated the evidence and proposed updated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, to describe the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Recommendations were finalized through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS: This update provides 16 RA treatment recommendations based on current best evidence and expert clinical opinion. Recommendations 1-3 deal with the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The next three recommendations (4-6) cover the need for screening and management of infections and comorbid conditions prior to starting targeted therapy, while the following seven recommendations focus on use of these agents. We address choice of targeted therapy, switch, tapering and discontinuation. The last three recommendations elaborate on targeted therapy for RA in special situations such as pregnancy, cancer, and major surgery.

METHODS: Seventy-seven medical doctors and eighty nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire designed to capture demographic data and information regarding abbreviation use in medical practice. Comparisons were made between doctors and nurses with regards to frequency and reasons for using abbreviations; from where abbreviations were learned; frequency of encountering abbreviations in medical practice; prevalence of medical errors due to misinterpretation of abbreviations; and their ability to correctly interpret commonly used abbreviations.

RESULTS: The use of abbreviations was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses. Time saving, avoidance of writing sentences in full and convenience, were the main reasons for using abbreviations. Doctors learned abbreviations from fellow doctors while nurses learned from fellow nurses and doctors. More doctors than nurses reported encountering abbreviations. Both groups reported no difficulties in interpreting abbreviations although nurses reported often resorting to guesswork. Both groups felt abbreviations were necessary and an acceptable part of work. Doctors outperformed nurses in correctly interpreting commonly used standard and non-standard abbreviations.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 12 private hospitals in Malaysia. A total of 652 (response rate = 61.8%) nurses participated in the study. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaire on nurses' characteristic, adverse events and events reporting, and perceived patient safety.

RESULTS: Patient and family complaints events were the most common adverse events in Malaysian private hospitals as result of increased cost of care (3.24 ± 0.95) and verbal miscommunication (3.52 ± 0.87).

OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to describe the development process of the COVID-19 Symptom Monitoring System (CoSMoS), which consists of a self-monitoring, algorithm-based Telegram bot and a teleconsultation system. We describe all the essential steps from the clinical perspective and our technical approach in designing, developing, and integrating the system into clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as lessons learned from this development process.

METHODS: CoSMoS was developed in three phases: (1) requirement formation to identify clinical problems and to draft the clinical algorithm, (2) development testing iteration using the agile software development method, and (3) integration into clinical practice to design an effective clinical workflow using repeated simulations and role-playing.

RESULTS: We completed the development of CoSMoS in 19 days. In Phase 1 (ie, requirement formation), we identified three main functions: a daily automated reminder system for patients to self-check their symptoms, a safe patient risk assessment to guide patients in clinical decision making, and an active telemonitoring system with real-time phone consultations. The system architecture of CoSMoS involved five components: Telegram instant messaging, a clinician dashboard, system administration (ie, back end), a database, and development and operations infrastructure. The integration of CoSMoS into clinical practice involved the consideration of COVID-19 infectivity and patient safety.

METHODS: We did a network meta-analysis based on a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing fibrinolytic drugs in patients with STEMI. Several databases were searched from inception up to Feb 28, 2017. We included only randomised controlled trials that compared fibrinolytic agents as a reperfusion therapy in adult patients with STEMI, whether given alone or in combination with adjunctive antithrombotic therapy, against other fibrinolytic agents, a placebo, or no treatment. Only trials investigating agents with an approved indication of reperfusion therapy in STEMI (streptokinase, tenecteplase, alteplase, and reteplase) were included. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality within 30-35 days and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016042131).

FINDINGS: A total of 40 eligible studies involving 128 071 patients treated with 12 different fibrinolytic regimens were assessed. Compared with accelerated infusion of alteplase with parenteral anticoagulants as background therapy, streptokinase and non-accelerated infusion of alteplase were significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1·14 [95% CI 1·05-1·24] for streptokinase plus parenteral anticoagulants; RR 1·26 [1·10-1·45] for non-accelerated alteplase plus parenteral anticoagulants). No significant difference in mortality risk was recorded between accelerated infusion of alteplase, tenecteplase, and reteplase with parenteral anticoagulants as background therapy. For major bleeding, a tenecteplase-based regimen tended to be associated with lower risk of bleeding compared with other regimens (RR 0·79 [95% CI 0·63-1·00]). The addition of glycoprotein IIb or IIIa inhibitors to fibrinolytic therapy increased the risk of major bleeding by 1·27-8·82-times compared with accelerated infusion alteplase plus parenteral anticoagulants (RR 1·47 [95% CI 1·10-1·98] for tenecteplase plus parenteral anticoagulants plus glycoprotein inhibitors; RR 1·88 [1·24-2·86] for reteplase plus parenteral anticoagulants plus glycoprotein inhibitors).

INTERPRETATION: Significant differences exist among various fibrinolytic regimens as reperfusion therapy in STEMI and alteplase (accelerated infusion), tenecteplase, and reteplase should be considered over streptokinase and non-accelerated infusion of alteplase. The addition of glycoprotein IIb or IIIa inhibitors to fibrinolytic therapy should be discouraged.

METHODS: All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS: A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.