The identification of novel, robust biomarkers for the diagnosis of rheumatic diseases (RDs) and the presence of active disease might facilitate early treatment and the achievement of favourable long-term outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the acute phase reactant, serum amyloid A (SAA), in RD patients and healthy controls to appraise its potential as diagnostic biomarker. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 10 April 2024 for relevant studies. We evaluated the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and GRADE, respectively (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024537418). In 32 studies selected for analysis, SAA concentrations were significantly higher in RD patients compared to controls (SMD = 1.61, 95% CI 1.24-1.98, p < 0.001) and in RD patients with active disease compared to those in remission (SMD = 2.17, 95% CI 1.21-3.13, p < 0.001). Summary receiving characteristics curve analysis showed a good diagnostic accuracy of SAA for the presence of RDs (area under the curve = 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.84). The effect size of the differences in SAA concentrations between RD patients and controls was significantly associated with sex, body mass index, type of RD, and study country. Pending the conduct of prospective studies in different types of RDs, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that SAA is a promising biomarker for the diagnosis of RDs and active disease.

The identification of novel, easily measurable biomarkers of inflammation might enhance the diagnosis and management of immunological diseases (IDs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate an emerging biomarker derived from the full blood count, the systemic inflammation index (SII), in patients with IDs and healthy controls. We searched Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to 12 December 2023 for relevant articles and evaluated the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the Joanna Briggs Checklist and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group system, respectively. In 16 eligible studies, patients with IDs had a significantly higher SII when compared to controls (standard mean difference, SMD = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41, p < 0.001; I2 = 96.2%, p < 0.001; moderate certainty of evidence). The pooled area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy was 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.88). In subgroup analysis, the effect size was significant across different types of ID, barring systemic lupus erythematosus (p = 0.20). In further analyses, the SII was significantly higher in ID patients with active disease vs. those in remission (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI 0.34-1.27, p < 0.001; I2 = 93.6%, p < 0.001; moderate certainty of evidence). The pooled AUC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.70-0.78). Our study suggests that the SII can effectively discriminate between subjects with and without IDs and between ID patients with and without active disease. Prospective studies are warranted to determine whether the SII can enhance the diagnosis of IDs in routine practice. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023493142).

The dietary management of active ulcerative colitis (UC) is currently poorly understood. Due to the lack of clinical guidelines for this population, diet choice may be based on the personal judgement of the clinician, and without sound evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the current literature on the dietary management of individuals with active UC, in both inpatient and outpatient settings, to determine if clinical outcomes differ by diet prescription.
PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and SCOPUS were comprehensively searched during March and April 2020. Eligible trials recruited adults with active UC comparing different methods of dietary management, including enteral nutrition (EN), total parenteral nutrition (TPN), elimination diets and standard oral diets, in both the inpatient and outpatient settings.
10 studies met inclusion criteria of this qualitative synthesis. No difference was found between EN, TPN and bowel rest in terms of disease activity measures when compared to a standard oral diet. The results of this study also showed promising potential for the use of elimination diets in the outpatient setting with four studies finding a significant difference in disease activity measures between the intervention diet and control.
There is no strong evidence to support the use of any specific dietary prescription to improve clinical outcomes for individuals with active UC. A number of low quality studies suggest benefit of following an elimination diet, however, additional high quality studies are required before any more specific recommendations can be made.

The role of interferon-γ release assays in the diagnosis of active tuberculosis disease is uncertain, and recent guidelines do not support their routine use. We reviewed the clinical records of 415 patients who had a QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube assay between 29 June 2005 and 28 October 2010 to determine its performance in the diagnosis of active tuberculosis disease in a low prevalence setting, specifically in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) -positive and HIV-negative patients, those of UK and non-UK origin, and those with pulmonary and extrapulmonary disease. For the diagnosis of active tuberculosis disease the overall sensitivity of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube assay was 71.4% (95% CI 59.3-81.1), specificity was 81.0% (95% CI 75.5-85.6) and negative predictive value was 92.6% (95% CI 88.2-95.5). No significant difference in sensitivity was seen in culture-positive and culture-negative tuberculosis, in pulmonary and extrapulmonary disease, or with HIV infection. Specificity and negative predictive value were significantly higher in patients of UK origin compared with those of non-UK origin (89.3% (95% CI 83.3-93.3) and 97.1% (95% CI 92.7-98.9) versus 66.3% (95% CI 55.6-75.5) and 83.3% (95% CI 72.6-90.4)). Our study suggests that there may be a role for interferon-γ release assays in excluding active tuberculosis disease, particularly extrapulmonary disease, in patients originating from areas of low tuberculosis incidence, with a negative test highly predictive of a lack of active tuberculosis disease in this group. We cannot support the use of these assays in the diagnosis of active tuberculosis infection in patients from areas of higher incidence.